Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

Defendant .

A. Defendant A(1) did not receive rebates as indicated in Nos. 8 and 9 a year’s list of crimes misleading the facts, and received only 70% of them in the case of Nos. 1 through 7 of crime sight table.

must be viewed.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1 million, an additional collection of KRW 2,1980,000) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) did not receive rebates as indicated in No. 1 per annum of the crime sight list, and only 70% of them was received in the case of No. 2 through 31 of the crime sight list.

must be viewed.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million, an additional collection of KRW 1,1330,000) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) There is no fact that rebates was received, as shown in No. 11 per annum of crime sight table.

2) In the case of a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the prosecution was completed at the expiration of five years after the date of receiving the rebates in the case of a one-year list of crimes committed.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million, additional collection of KRW 3.290,000) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D (misunderstanding of facts or legal principles) The appellate court shall judge the grounds for ex officio if the appeal is lawful, without any need to examine whether the grounds for appeal have been submitted or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, with respect to non-reasons for ex officio investigation, it may be the object of the trial only where it is stated in the petition of appeal or is included in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted within a prescribed period, and even if it is not included in the statement of reasons for appeal, it may be judged ex officio only on the grounds affecting the judgment. Meanwhile, even if the defendant or defense counsel states matters not included in the statement of reasons in the statement of reasons in the appellate court

It cannot be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do167 delivered on February 26, 2002).