All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) The Defendant alleged that he was guilty on the grounds of mistake, and did not dispute the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “The Aggravated Punishment Act”) and the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “The Aggravated Punishment Act”), among the criminal facts that the lower court found guilty on the grounds of mistake.

Before discussing a merger with the CV Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) (hereinafter “CV”), in light of the following: (a) the management status prior to the lease; (b) the O’s situation at the time of the lease; (c) relationship with the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); (d) the source of loan; (c) the place of use of the loan; (d) the transfer of the O’s operating rights; and (e) the CV dismissed the Defendant from the office of the O’s representative director and left theO alone; and (c) the Defendant was somewhat dangerous as an operator of the company, even if the F’s funds have significantly deteriorated the CF’s financial soundness at the time of lending to theO; and (b) the lending of the funds should be recognized within the scope of the business judgment; and (c) as soon as a result, there is a criminal intent of breach of trust.

It is insufficient to judge.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) Fact-misunderstanding is that F’s purchase of accommodation rights to the E hotel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E hotel”) in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes is an act in conflict of interest. E’s average daily sales rate of the E hotel, F’s free accommodation charge, F’s regional distribution, access to the E hotel group in which E hotel is located, out of the regular members who actually received the E hotel’s promise and accommodation number among the regular members, and the intent to provide funding to E hotel, the Defendant shall have the right to accommodation of E hotel without reasonable management judgment.