The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In a situation where it is difficult for misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles to maintain the financial status of FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), the Defendant proposed H and G to secure operating funds through capital increase for consideration, but H and G refused to do so. Accordingly, the stock holding ratio is changed as the Defendant independently invested funds and increased F’s capital.

In light of these circumstances, the consent of the reduction of the period in this case was obtained from H and G at the implied consent of the person in the name of the person in preparation of the letter of waiver of the subscription to new shares, or the defendant did not have the intent to commit the act in writing

It is reasonable to view it.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine can be acknowledged as having prepared a letter of consent to the reduction of the period of this case and a letter of waiver of new shares with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendant did not have any explicit or implied consent.

A) The Defendant and H and G jointly established F with a similar investment rate in 2012.

At the time of incorporation of the company, G was a director with the representative authority, and the defendant was responsible for the smooth operation of loan-related business around May 2013.

B) On December 2013, 2013, the Defendant’s share ratio increased due to the change in the number of shares issued by the company that the Defendant 44% and H and G held 28% of the shares issued by the company without actual stock transaction. However, H and G continued to participate in the management of the company and continued to perform their duties.

C) The Defendant’s financial situation to H and G around May 9, 2014.