Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

except that this shall not apply.

A. The Defendants did not commit a theft of the victim’s power in collusion, as stated in the instant facts charged, with the Defendants’ misunderstanding of violation of the rules of evidence and facts.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: 3 years of suspended sentence in January and June, 1 year of imprisonment; 120 hours of community service order; Defendant B’s community service order in one year of suspended sentence; 3 years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment; 1 year of surveillance in one year of suspended sentence; and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of violation of the rules of evidence and mistake of facts, the Defendants can sufficiently acknowledge the fact that the Defendants conspired to commit a theft of the victim’s force as stated in the instant facts charged, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence cannot be accepted.

1) Defendant A is the representative of the D (hereinafter “instant workplace”) and Defendant B is in charge of the electric inspection of the instant workplace as an electrical safety manager.

Defendant

B maintains close relations with Defendant A by lending KRW 250 million to Defendant A around 2008.

2) On July 29, 2014, F et al., a J employee to conduct the inspection, etc. of electric meters with the authority delegated by the victim at the morning, was confirmed to have a high-level rate of loss (92.5%) in excess of ordinary errors as a result of the MOF’s erroneous test using the MOF device after visiting the instant workplace. From that point of time, it was confirmed that there was a high-level rate of loss even in cases where the Defendants conducted a re-examination in the presence of the Defendants after approximately one hour thereafter.

At the time, the above MOF apparatus is.