The judgment below

Among them, the part of conviction against the Defendants (including the part of acquittal) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (A) was in violation of the Act on External Audit of Stock Companies due to the accounting division for the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 and the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (1). Defendant A did not directly instruct the accounting division for the year 2013 and 2014; Defendant A did not recognize the fact that the correct accounting standards and the actual accounting results were processed differently from the correct accounting standards; Defendant A’s report was insufficient to know the fact that the data received by Defendant A could not by itself indicate the reduced cost of total construction or by appropriating the bad debt allowances for long-term sales claims and the bad debt allowances for subsidiaries undermining the accounting division for the year 2013 and 2014. As such, Defendant A did not participate in or implied the accounting division for the year 2014.

(2) Defendant A engaged in the accounting division in 2013, and 2014.

In calculating the amount of division, ① cannot be considered as the best estimate of the cost for total construction works under the implementation plan of the following year, ② in the case of a final and conclusive construction project, whether the body is reflected in the business plan of the following year must be recognized as the contractual revenue, ③ in accordance with the corporate accounting standards, established before 2012 in accordance with the corporate accounting standards.

such amount as is equivalent to the bad debt reserve for long-term sales claims shall be excluded from the amount in installments.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant A of part of the facts charged on the ground that Defendant A participated in the accounting division in 2013 and 2014. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) (1) In the case of setting the guarantee limit on the credit as stated in (3) [Attachment Table of Crimes (hereinafter 2)] No. 15 and 16 attached to the judgment of the court below, the bank set the guarantee limit on the credit as belonging to Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter Q Q Q)’s financial statements for the fiscal year 2013 and 2014, which were falsely prepared by the bank.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) A list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below (2) (hereinafter referred to as "the list").