1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, F, G, and M shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant F.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles and incomplete deliberation (as to the acquittal of each part of the above Defendants’ 2P Errors car receipt and giving and receiving property in breach of trust and giving and receiving property in breach of trust), even though Defendant M did not transfer the ownership of the above Defendants A, there was an agreement among the above Defendants at the time when Defendant M provided the above vehicles to Defendant A with the intention to have Defendant A use the vehicle entirely and practically, and in fact, Defendant A used the above vehicle entirely for about 53 months, and the amount equivalent to the lease fee during the vehicle use period exceeds the vehicle value. In light of the fact that Defendant A used the above vehicle entirely for about 53 months, it is reasonable to evaluate that Defendant A received the above vehicle from Defendant M.

Nevertheless, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A received the above vehicle per se from Defendant M, and each of the facts charged against the above Defendants was acquitted, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the lower court, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the sentence imposed by the said Defendants (for Defendant A: imprisonment of two years and additional collection of KRW 367,200,000,000: fine of KRW 4,000,000) and the legal principles as to Defendant F and G; and (b) the incomplete hearing (for each of the aforementioned Defendants’ 15,761,30,00 won and the charges of breach of trust related to receipt of KRW 115,761,30,00) and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court (for each of the aforementioned Defendants’ non-guilty portion of the charges of giving and receiving property in breach of trust and giving and receiving property in breach of trust, Defendant F, the head of the department in charge of new research institute of “AJ” (hereinafter referred to as the “AJ”), was made to the effect that Defendant F, the representative of BS, can supply equipment from