A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant B (hereinafter “I”) has the right to operate the restaurant in Busan Jung-gu L construction site (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) as the talk of H, the actual operator of I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

Defendant A’s belief that the instant box to Defendant A does not sell to a third party the right to operate the restaurant.

On the other hand, although Defendant A was unaware of the fact that Defendant A sold a restaurant operation right to the victim G and F, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to Defendant B is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. The judgment of ex officio with respect to Defendant A decided to jointly examine each appeal case against Defendant A and each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of second instance. On the other hand, each of the offenses against Defendant A in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the rejection of application for compensation order among the part against Defendant A and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance excluding the compensation order.

B. Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant B’s assertion 1) Defendant B’s summary of the facts charged in the instant case with Defendant A and H, and Defendant B’s own opinion.