The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

(2).

1. The judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants could be found guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes for the following reasons (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles).

① The Defendants, on behalf of the Victim G clan (hereinafter “victim clan”), transferred part of the ownership transfer registration on 2,00 square meters of the forest land to be traded as indicated in the instant facts charged to the Defendant Company I (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and set off part of the intermediate payment claim against I against I, and did not receive part of the claim against I for N in lieu of receiving part payment from I.

Even if so,

Even if the above claims are transferred to the victim's clans, since the possibility of repayment is not clear enough, so long as the defendants acquired only the above insufficient claims in lieu of the payment of intermediate payment without any physical security against the part payment claims of the victim's clans, the risk of property damage to the victim's clans was caused.

② In light of the fact that before and after the sale of the above forest land, the victim was paid the sales price of another forest land, and the remaining 400 million won of the forest land was paid as an executive expenses, leave expenses, entertainment expenses for business partners, etc., and it is difficult to find grounds for the defendants to pay for the legal expenses corresponding to the embezzlement of the species 30 billion won of P except for the deposit money of KRW 80 million. In light of the above, the defendants committed the above acts to raise the necessary funds of the victim clan.

It can not be seen, and the Defendants can be found to have the intent of breach of trust.

2. Judgment ex officio due to changes in indictment

A. The prosecutor changed the indictment to the indictment for the following reasons: (a) the facts charged in this case, the name of the crime, and the applicable legal provisions were applied to the prosecutor; and (b) the court applied for the amendment to the indictment.