A. Defendant A (i) misunderstanding of facts did not perform the role of joint team leader of the J Team, such as that there was no amount received and settled by Defendant A and the J Team, and that there was no emulation or management of the organization members.

B. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that Defendant A’s mistake and reflects his own mistake, and that the gain acquired individually is not so big.

B. Defendant B (i) misunderstanding of facts at the request of Defendant A, Defendant B was only aware of the fact that the settlement was made by Defendant A, and did not perform the joint team leader’s role.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant B’s mistake and reflects his mistake, there is no means of punishment for the same kind of force, the benefits acquired from the instant crime are merely the amount of KRW 30 million, and the fact that Defendant B is scheduled to make efforts to change the damage in the trial, etc., the sentence of the lower court against Defendant B (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. In light of the fact that Defendant C (Unfairly Undue Practices) committed a mistake against Defendant C, the degree of his participation in Defendant C is minor compared to other accomplices, and the profits acquired from the instant crime are low, the lower court’s imprisonment with labor for Defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it seems that the name “the head of the team” or “the head of the team” is not assigned or referred to.

However, the meaning of "joint team leader" as stated in the facts charged is actually assigned or named.