The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the dismissed portion of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are deemed to supplement the grounds for appeal.

1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the Defendants used the Defendants’ deposit account in the name of the victimized company as the transaction account according to the direction of K, which is the actual operator of the victimized company.

The Defendants transferred the funds of the damaged company to the Defendants’ related account in accordance with the direction of the J, the representative director of the K and K’s office, and the ASEAN’s interest damage company, and according to the direction of theO andJ, the Defendants transferred funds from the damaged company’s account to the Defendants in order to raise operating funds and living expenses, etc. so, those who embezzled the funds of the victimized company should be deemed to be O and J.

The most of the amounts transferred to the deposit account in the name of the Defendants is transferred to the other accounts of the damaged company or to the accounts of the operator's family members. Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have obtained unlawful acquisition intent, and such transfer is also made according to the instructions of the operator of the victimized company, such as K andO.

Defendant

A, upon the direction of theO, transferred from the deposit account in the name of Q to the deposit account in the name of Q, such as the last 12,13 table of the crime committed in attached Form 12, as stated in the judgment below.

Therefore, this part is also deemed to have been embezzled by O, and theO knew that the defendant borrowed from Q and should repay the funds that he borrowed to theO.

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court (Defendant B: 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the part not guilty of the reasons), Defendant B was subject to a cancer surgery on January 7, 2011, and was in charge of the accounting affairs of the victimized company. However, the Defendants were in charge of the accounting affairs of the victimized company. Defendant A’s false account book and submitted it to K upon Defendant B’s instruction.