The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A (justifiable assertion) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant did not actively participate in each of the instant crimes except that he/she was appointed as the auditor of the instant company upon G’s request.

(2) Even if the Defendant’s conviction is acknowledged, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Directors of a stock company charged with the instant case shall be appointed at a general meeting of shareholders, and appointed directors shall undergo a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders, and the representative director shall be appointed

In addition, if the board of directors decides whether to convene a general meeting of shareholders or not, and if the board of directors does not follow the convocation procedure despite the request of a shareholder who holds shares equivalent to not less than 10/3 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, the claimed shareholder may convene a general meeting with the permission of the court, and exceptionally, if the total amount of capital is less than one billion won, the company may

E is a shareholder on the list of shareholders of F(F) shares 4,500 shares (15%) and G is a shareholder on the list of shareholders of F(F) shares 12,00 shares (40%) and H is a shareholder on the list of shareholders of F(F) shares 12,00 shares (40%) and Defendant A is a shareholder of F(F) who moves into “I building” and Defendant B is a creditor of F(F)’s joint representative director.

E and H requested K to convene a general meeting of shareholders at the end of November 201, but rejected the request. At that time, the above request was dismissed on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize E and H as a real shareholder entitled to exercise the rights as a shareholder in relation to E and H from the above court on January 6, 2012. In collusion with the Defendants, the F (State) representative director K.