The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

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

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of the legal principles on unreasonable sentencing 1) Without considering the following circumstances, the lower court, without considering the following circumstances, decided to omit the names in the name of “Defendants” in the case of the Defendants and the Defendants, and made an additional statement to the remaining Defendant. In so doing, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the relevant part of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (A) Defendant B believed that the claims asserted by Defendant A were actually existing and issued and notarized the instant promissory note, and had Defendant B issued and notarized the instant promissory note. Thus, Defendant B did not have the intention of breach of trust, and even in the case of another corporation, Defendant B did not have the intention to omit the name of “stock company” and the abbreviation of the lower court’s right to issue the promissory note in the name of the Defendant B, which is the constituent element of the crime of breach of trust.

Even if Defendant B constituted a crime of occupational breach of trust, Defendant A did not have the intention of breach of trust and did not actively participate in Defendant B’s act of breach of trust. Therefore, Defendant A cannot be punished as a co-principal of occupational breach of trust.

B. During Defendant A and B’s joint criminal conduct, Defendant B had the authority to issue promissory notes in the name of Defendant B, which are forged securities, counterfeited securities, falsified entry in the authentic copy of the authentic deed, and false entry in the authentic deed. Defendant B was also entitled to individually delegate or consent on the issuance of promissory notes from Company A’s directors G.

In addition, Defendant B and this part of the crimes are committed by Defendant A.