The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants (1) out of the amount stated in the judgment of the court below by Defendant A, KRW 72.5 million was paid to the executive officers and employees as monthly salary, etc., and the consent of the claim group was obtained from the beginning.

Of the amounts stated in the decision of the court below, KRW 10 million was paid as attorney fees and actually paid as attorney fees.

Therefore, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and unfair sentencing in the judgment of the court below finding guilty of criminal facts.

(2) According to the records of Defendant B and C, even if the above Defendants were to be served with the notification of the receipt of the trial record on October 14, 2013, they did not file the statement of grounds for appeal within the due deadline for submitting the appellate brief (within 20 days from the date the receipt of the trial record was received), and there was no statement in the petition of appeal

However, as examined below, the judgment below should be examined ex officio in accordance with the proviso of Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is an error of misunderstanding of facts affecting the judgment and there is an ex officio

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendant B by the public prosecutor is unreasonable because the punishment (eight months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the Defendant B is too uneased.

2. Judgment on mistake of facts

A. According to the summary of the facts charged in this case, according to the records of this case, Defendant A’s joint representative director of the Fund in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the director of the Fund in the Dispute Resolution, Defendant C, and Defendant B’s Dong Dong-dong in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “AH” and “B” were separate corporations, Defendant B’s type of “B” were the actual operator of the Dispute Resolution Fund, and Defendant B’s type of “B” was the joint representative director of the Dispute Resolution Fund. At the time, Defendant A, who is a type of punishment, was the joint representative director of the Dispute Resolution Fund, and was involved in the process of “

In February of 2009, the bond group composed of creditors with respect to the credit holding company F and the credit amount until the settlement is made.