The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and Defendant D.

A. Defendant A, D, Defendant A, and D alleged in the statement of grounds for appeal on February 17, 2015 that “the whole or part of the money created by outside funds was used for the company.” On the date of the first instance trial, the Defendants’ defense counsel stated that, on the date of the first instance trial, the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is limited to the instant violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act and obstruction of the performance of deceptive scheme, and that the Defendants appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing. Therefore, the grounds for appeal on this part of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal regarding occupational embezzlement is deemed to have been limited to unfair sentencing. Furthermore, even if ex officio, the Defendants’ ground for appeal on this part of the occupational embezzlement in the judgment below seems to have been limited to unfair sentencing. In addition, there is no error of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in the part of the occupational embezzlement.: Violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act due to permission by false or other unlawful means (hereinafter “instant violation of the Aggregate Extraction Act”).

Defendants are Y and Z mining areas (hereinafter “each of the instant mining areas”) with the obstruction of performance of official duties by fraudulent means.

) Of Y mining areas exemption from marine traffic safety diagnosis (hereinafter “exemption from safety diagnosis”).

(1) The facts that the Plaintiff did not receive (hereinafter “instant facts”) are as follows.

The Defendants informed F of F as public officials in charge, and sought a preference. As above, the Defendants’ permission to extract aggregate (hereinafter “instant permission”) by false or other unlawful means.

(2) Although there was no interference with the public official in charge of Ansan City with respect to permission to extract aggregate by obtaining permission or through fraudulent means, the lower court committed an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. (2) Defendant B: The Defendant did not have received an illegal solicitation implicitly from BI, and provided by BI.