A. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor of 1 year and 10 months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor of 2 years) declared by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles entered into an agreement with the Defendants to be subject to criminal punishment as the president in the event of crackdown on the principal action, and on May 18, 201, the Defendants received a call from the Defendants to go to the gas station and go to the gas station as if they were the actual owners of the oil station. As such, it is recognized that the Defendants instigated the Defendants to escape from the F on May 18, 201, and that the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants on this part was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, on May 18, 201, the crime of aiding and abetting an offender and on May 19, 201, the crime of aiding and abetting an offender was committed with a single criminal intent, which is a single comprehensive crime, and the judgment of the court below which judged this as concurrent crimes and acquitted the offender separately in the text of the crime is erroneous in the judgment of the court below.

2) misunderstanding of the legal principles as to collection of additional charges (as to Defendant A), Defendant A enjoyed criminal proceeds, such as receiving profit distribution according to the operation of the gas station in this case, and thus, the lower judgment that did not sentence the collection of additional charges against Defendant A erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On May 18, 2011, in relation to the crime of aiding and abetting, Defendant A and B conspired to operate a gas station that sells fake petroleum products on September 201 in collusion, Defendant A and B proposed that F take charge of the role of the term "the chief executive officer" who is punished on behalf of the actual owner of the business if it is controlled in return for paying KRW 3 million per month to F, and F is subject to a fine if it was first controlled by the sale of fake petroleum products.