A. In fact, there was an agreement among the Defendants misunderstanding the fact that there was a joint operation of the instant Felel, and accordingly, jointly occupied the said Moel.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendants asserted the same as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected it and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the defendants changed the business operator of the above Maurel in the name of the defendants without the intent to jointly operate the above Maurel is justified. Thus, there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendants.

(1) Around October 19, 2015, when the Defendants changed the business operator of the instant franchise to the name of the Defendants, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) filed a lawsuit against Defendant A for delivery of a building (the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015 Ghana 1180, group 1180), Defendant A was sentenced to delivery of the said franchise to D on November 3, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13198, Nov. 3, 2015; Act No. 13584, Nov. 3, 2015; Act No. 13584, Feb. 23, 2015>

② The instant telecom was in difficult condition to operate the instant telecom with due to the deterioration of the facility, etc., and the Defendants paid KRW 5 million the electric deposit for the instant telecom. In order to pay KRW 5 million, Defendant B entered into a partnership agreement on the condition that he invested KRW 5 million in the said telecom.

The Defendants are entitled to the agreement of the same business. The Defendants are entitled to the above franchise in return for Defendant B’s investment.