The judgment below

All parts of the defendant A and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

A 3 years of imprisonment, Defendant E.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. As to Defendant A and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes”) (i.e., distribution; hereinafter “Violation of the Specific Economic Crimes”) by Defendant A, etc., even if they were issued golf membership, they did not acquire the status of a member because they did not pay a security deposit for membership. Golf membership is merely a evidence certificate or a nominative claim certificate, and there is little possibility that they would have a duty to return a security deposit from E or a third party who acquired it. Therefore, there is no risk of damage to C.

Even if the suspicion of breach of trust is recognized, the amount of benefit cannot be calculated, so special circumstances cannot be punished as a crime of violation of law.

B) Regarding the Defendants’ violation of the Framework Act on Local Taxes, ① Company D (hereinafter “D”) is an independent corporation, not one business department of Company C.

② Only a person who has no tax payment or who possesses a non-person’s property, is a criminal subject, and sales claims accrued after an operation entrustment contract was concluded on February 1, 2013 with D (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) shall belong to D who is not a tax-free person.

③ The instant consignment contract is not a concealment of property as genuine and does not make it unclear that the ownership of sales claims is attributed.

(4) It is difficult to deem that a child is subject to evasion or evasion of the execution of a disposition on default.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 3 years of imprisonment; Defendant C: fine of KRW 10,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) In fact, the Defendant is duly receiving KRW 195 million as a sales agency fee according to the sales agency contract with C, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

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

(c)

Defendant

G1) The Defendant is actually aware of the fact.