The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor (Defendant A, B, and C) of the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles (the part not guilty in the lower judgment with respect to Defendant A and B) of the instant non-financing merely for the purpose or for the purpose of promoting the other party’s interest, i.e., giving rise to breach of trust, or for the sole purpose of promoting the company’s interest. As such, if Defendant A, B, and C were to have raised the non-financing as described in the facts charged, it is reasonable to deem that the intent of unlawful acquisition was already realized at the time of the creation of the non-financing.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and fine of two million won in case of Defendant B) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) The lower court found Defendant guilty of the destruction of evidence on the ground that the lower court did not constitute the crime of destroying evidence, on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor, the prosecutor’s prosecutor, the summary of the prosecutor’s assertion, and the prosecutor, the company’s director, etc., raised funds for the company’s funds and re-influents the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement at the time of raising funds for the company’s funds.

The argument is asserted.

Defendant

A acknowledges this part of the facts charged.

Defendant

B asserts that there is no intention to acquire illegal profits because there is no fact that Defendant A participated in the creation of the non-capital invested fund.

Defendant

C As long as the specific place of use of 50 million won is not investigated, the act of raising funds for non-financing alone cannot be recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition to Defendant C, and the intention of unlawful acquisition is not recognized.