The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (as to the judgment of the court below in the first and second instance): Unless there is a specific problem not exceeding the Defendant, the name of the Defendant in each item is omitted and is referred to as “Defendant”.

Each sentence of the lower court (the first instance judgment: 4 years of imprisonment, and 4 months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

The Defendant’s defense counsel stated in the petition of appeal that “the appeal was filed on the grounds of legal scenarios, mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing,” but the appellate brief stated that “the appeal was lodged on the grounds of bilaterally unfair sentencing.”

Furthermore, during the first trial of the trial, the Defendant’s defense counsel explicitly stated that “the allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the written complaint was withdrawn and appealed on the ground of unreasonable sentencing.”

B. As to Defendant I’s occupational breach of trust, the lower court acquitted Defendant I on the charge of occupational breach of trust, in which the Defendant took advantage of the total amount of KRW 462,772,00,00 in sales proceeds by re-saleing the right to desire for admission already used, despite the fact-finding that the Defendant could have been convicted in full view of the witness’s respective statements and the Defendant’s account details, etc., the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted Defendant

B) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unhued and unreasonable. 2) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal against Defendant A before determining ex officio and the prosecutor’s grounds for appeal.

The first and second judgment against the defendant was pronounced, and both the defendant and the prosecutor appealed from the first and the second judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the defendant appealed from the second judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the court of the first instance decided to concurrently examine the above two appeals cases.

However, the court of original judgment recognized the defendant respectively.