Defendant

A Imprisonment for six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of eight million won and Defendant C.

A. The defendant A et al. refers to the defendant's name without indicating the name of the defendant in the pertinent item of each defendant, and the remaining defendant is named as the name, unless it is required to be described separately.

In this case, the defendant argued that he was guilty of facts as the initial reason for appeal, but the first trial date of the first trial was rejected.

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing 1) In relation to the attempted receipt of breach of trust, and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not receive or respond to an illegal request from A, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the P’s statement. In addition, there was a lack of consistency in P’s statement, and there was a smoke that “C vehicle replacement” part and B did not change from the Defendant’s “the vehicle replacement should be changed due to the lack of any money made by A to change the vehicle,” among the circumstances described by the lower court as the grounds for supporting its credibility.

The statement is not admissible as a professional evidence, and the remainder is unrelated to the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles pertaining to the obstruction of auction and the occupation of occupational breach of trust, the Defendant did not have conspired to commit the crime of interference with auction and the crime of occupational breach of trust or shared the commission of the crime of occupational breach of trust, nor did there have any evidence to acknowledge

The record of the CD images and recording produced by the court below as evidence of conviction against this part of the facts charged cannot be a evidence to prove the facts of the defendant's conspiracy, and the defendant was reduced at the court below's store of this case.