The judgment below

Among the parts of conviction against Defendant A, those against Defendant C, and those against Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s fraud against Q was committed by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant A had the intention or ability to pay the acquisition price to K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) by raising funds from a third party even if the funds owned by Defendant A were not funds.

B) The fact that K violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) for K was managed by Q, and Defendant A is not a custodian of K funds.

K Funds are withdrawn and delivered with the approval and consent of S and Q and representative directors who hold all shares, and therefore do not constitute embezzlement.

Defendant

A merely kept the amount of KRW 600,000 delivered by Q to BP, and there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

C) Defendant A believed that an underwriting contract would be normally concluded after soliciting AT stock company (hereinafter “AT”) to take over the private document forgery, forged private document uttering, and violation of the Act on the ATA, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and Defendant A did not intend to deceive or defraud BC only by borrowing KRW 800 million down payment from the victim BC.

Defendant

A, on January 4, 2013, after obtaining the consent of the seller AX, knew that C signed and sealed the AX’s signature on the acquisition of shares and management rights (hereinafter “acquisition agreement”) and did not know that the contract was forged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The misunderstanding of facts by Defendant C merely received KRW 800 million upon A’s request, but did not participate in the crime of forging private documents, uttering of forged private documents, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

2) The judgment of the court below on the non-performance of reasons and contradictions in the reasoning is that Defendant C conspiredd to commit the above crimes.

Even though it is judged, it does not state the proper reasons for it, and it is also contradictory to the contents stated for the reasons of the conviction.