The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: The punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. A prosecutor 1) Although the prosecutor could fully recognize this part of the facts charged according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes among the facts charged, the court below acquitted the defendant. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting

2) The sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) which was pronounced not guilty at the court below, the prosecutor of the judgment ex officio applied Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, "Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 356, Article 355(2), and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act," and Article 355(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment to add the facts charged to the indictment, and

As examined below, this part of the facts charged is recognized as follows, and the judgment of the court below shall be sentenced again to the guilty portion among these parts and the judgment of the court below, so the whole judgment of the court below cannot

Although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court, and this is examined below.

B. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles [the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] was based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, and D had an intention to transfer KRW 1,636,271,630 in the name of AA through a claim for transfer under the control of the Defendant, who is the actual president, and was the Defendant of the said lawsuit.

D-.