Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and fines for 5,000.

A. misunderstanding the legal principles on the actual substance of Defendant A (misunderstanding of the legal principles and sentencing unfair): The instant crime is divided into the crime from January 14, 2005 to April 29, 2009 and the crime from June 23, 2009 to May 25, 2012; each of the crimes is in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes.

Inasmuch as the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor by the Seoul Central District Court on January 25, 2010, as stated in all the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, and the sentence became final and conclusive on February 10, 201, the former crime is in the relation of concurrent crimes between the crime for which the said judgment became final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below determined each of the above crimes as a single crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on concurrent crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment of the court below is too heavy.

B. Defendant B, C, and E Co., Ltd. (unfair sentencing) are too heavy (hereinafter Defendant E Co., Ltd. is referred to as “Defendant Company”).

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the above defendant's prosecutor (the additional collection amount for defendant A: 1,494,958,250 won in total) and the defendant's profits (the total amount of KRW 1,494,958,250 in total) that the above defendant acquired through the defendant company during the period of crime should be collected as criminal proceeds.

The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which did not impose additional collection on the defendant on the ground that the criminal proceeds were not specified.

2. The above defendants A, B, and C are examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the above defendants and the prosecutor.

A prosecutor is unable to conduct his business due to the suspension of business during the period of the crime against the above Defendants during which he committed the crime against the said Defendants (Provided, That the Defendant C was from January 14, 2005 to July 25, 2009).