All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) Defendant’s transfer of 57,810 shares of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant shares”) owned by the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) to H was for the sake of the victim company, and there was no intention to obtain occupational breach of trust and illegal acquisition.

B) On February 2015, the victim company transferred 27,171 shares among the shares of this case to Q and transferred by the Defendant to Q is merely 30,639 shares, not the share price indicated in the facts charged, and it cannot be deemed that the actual value per share is 8,000 won. Thus, the judgment of the court below that determined the total amount of KRW 462,480,000, which is the share price, as damages amount, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant B did not intend to obtain the intent of occupational breach of trust at the time of the instant case, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the violation of occupational breach of trust, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and of misapprehending of legal principles.

Defendant

B asserted “misunderstanding of facts and legal principles” as the ground for appeal to the effect that the initial intention of breach of trust and the intention of unlawful acquisition was not obtained, but the second trial date ( July 19, 2018) explicitly withdrawn the allegation “misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles” as above, and even upon examining the record, there is no particular ex officio ground in the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s ground for appeal. Thus, it is not separately determined as to Defendant B’s ground for appeal.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted that this part of the appeal is identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court’s judgment states in detail the judgment on the above assertion.