All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) merely introduced Defendant A to Defendant C upon the request of Defendant A to inquire about his jobs, and did not know that Defendant A was the criminal of Bosing.

Nevertheless, the court below took part in the licensing business in collusion with Defendant A.

The decision is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The prosecutor’s improper sentencing (public prosecutor, Defendant A, and B 1): The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (2 years and six months of imprisonment; Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months; Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and two years of suspended execution) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2) Defendant A, B: The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court made a judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (Defendant B), that is, the following circumstances revealed by each evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, ① reversed the statement made by the investigative agency in the court and introduced Defendant B to the effect that Defendant B was a sports debate-related one. Defendant B testified to the effect that Defendant B was unaware of the scope of the singishing business, but Defendant B testified to the effect that Defendant B was unaware of the singishing business. However, Defendant B testified to the effect that the singishing business would not be excessive.

(2) On August 19, 2015, A sent Defendant B a written message stating that “AC is written in the old U.S.-U.S.-T. Speeded vehicle AB 11:40 minutes of arrival at 40 minutes” on August 19, 2015, it appears that A could not receive a house-related to singing, directly, and thus, A could not receive a house-related to singing, and it appears that A would receive it on behalf of Defendant B, and ③ “A sent a crime, but the Seoul B’s Guest test was laid down in the cover of the match fine.”

“The word “” sent to Defendant B, which appears to be the purport of requesting the content that only works for the licensing organization, and ④ Defendant B sent to Defendant B on August 29, 2015.