The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant A (unfair imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B applied for a payment order based on the investment agreement lawfully prepared and exercised a legitimate right, and thus, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional breach of trust, and even if Defendant A did not raise an objection against the payment order issued by the court, the crime of occupational breach of trust is established.

Even if Defendant B did not actively participate by inducing Defendant A to commit an act of occupational breach of trust or participating in the entire process of the act of occupational breach of trust, Defendant B cannot be deemed as a joint principal offender for the crime of occupational breach of trust of Defendant A.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant's crime of this case committed the crime of this case against the defendant A's assertion of unfair sentencing, thereby causing enormous damage to the victim company whose representative director is the representative director as stated in the court below's decision, and hindering the director's duty in charge of accounting by fraudulent means, and the nature of

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the confession of the facts charged in the instant case and the fact that the defendant made a mistake in the trial, the fact that the defendant deposited KRW 47,629,680, which is the amount of damage for the victim in the trial, and the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, etc., the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, background and motive leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B

A. The Defendants’ summary of the facts charged are Seoul around November 2010, along with E.