A. Although the Defendants, as stated in the instant facts charged, have caused mistake of facts, such as computer and documents, it was intended to protect the assets and information of the Incorporated Agricultural Company E, and the Defendants did not have any intention to interfere with business, and even if there was intention, the Defendants’ act constitutes legitimate act.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 700,000) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this case, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds of its stated reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendants.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Although the Defendants were returned the goods brought by the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the crime of this case is not good in light of the background and mode of conduct, the fact that the crime of this case was not agreed with the victims up to the trial court, and other circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered to be too unreasonable to the extent that the sentence imposed by the court below goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.