Of the convictions against Defendant B, Article 1-2(b), (e), (2), and (4) of the judgment of the court below are as follows.

A. Defendant A, B, C, D, E, and G1), misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant A, who violated the Labor Standards Act, did not immediately withdraw the phone for employment of AJ and did not intervene in employment due to the lack of the request for employment of BR. Although Defendant A was not for profit-making purposes in relation to employment of AJ and BR, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) The money and valuables received by Defendant A from Defendant A in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (AV) constitute an agreed amount for business activities, and Q did not request the Defendant A to arrange the contract number of government-funded construction works, and even if Q requested the Defendant to provide it, it does not constitute a crime of re-concepting good offices due to the lack of existence between the good offices and the provision of money and valuables, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) Improper sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as to the (1) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts as to the recruitment of private school teachers, and Defendant B, who violated the Labor Standards Act, will have the victims employ them as teachers.

Although the court below did not receive the money as a consideration for employment by making a false statement, it found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged on the basis of only the statement of C and victims with no credibility. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

(2) The fact that Defendant B received each money from Defendant B in relation to the selection of a heat supply company, the selection of a core engine supplier, and the arrangement for the selection of a public health clinic supplier. However, even though Defendant B received a loan from F and did not receive any payment for the selection of the supplier, the lower court convicted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged.