All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A, for six years and for two years, for Defendant CM.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) In relation to the embezzlement of the judgment of the court below of the second instance on the erroneous determination of facts (the Defendants’ joint principal offense committed on March 2014, 4159) (the Defendants’ joint principal offense), the Defendant did not agree to introduce electronic bills on behalf of the Defendants to introduce electronic bills to CR Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CR”), and the Defendant did not know that the introduction of electronic bills was made.

Therefore, there was a criminal intent of embezzlement.

There is no fact that there is no public contestation with the MF, and there is no fact that economic benefits have been acquired by embezzlement.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Article 1: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and 2 years of imprisonment: 4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the embezzlement of Defendant CM (1) in the judgment of the court below of the second instance on the misunderstanding of facts (the Defendants’ co-principal facts on March 2014 and 4159) (the Defendants’ co-principal facts), there was a criminal intent of embezzlement as well as the disposal of electronic bills to A.

there is no conspiracy with A or with A.

(2) The crime of embezzlement (A) is established when another person’s property is kept in custody and disposed of at will. The victim CW cannot be the victim of the crime of embezzlement unless it is proved that he/she is the owner of the instant electronic bill.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case on the premise that CW is the victim is not a crime or there is no proof of a crime, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement.

(B) As to the amendment of the Prosecutor’s selective indictment, even if the CX corporation (hereinafter “CX”) as the owner of the instant electronic bill is deemed the victim, there is no consignment relationship between the victim CX and the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute embezzlement.

(3) The punishment of the lower court’s judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant CN (1) Fraud in the judgment of the second instance.