A. Defendant A (a factual error, an unreasonable sentencing decision) withdrawn Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles through the statement of a comprehensive summary statement as of July 4, 2018.

1) On June 11, 2014, Defendant A of mistake of fact refers to Defendant A as “Defendant”; Defendant B as “B”; Defendant B is referred to as “B; and Defendant B is also referred to in the same manner in assertion and judgment related to Defendant B.

(2) From the perspective of determining whether the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the type of document screening in 2014. (2) The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing) 1, Defendant B withdrawn his assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles as to interference with business on the second trial date. Defendant B’s right to prepare the career suitability evaluation table of this case is not a matter belonging to the general authority of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s act of signing again on the changed evaluation table at the Defendant’s request does not constitute an abuse of official authority. Although the Defendant did not have a legal obligation, the act of signing again on the changed evaluation table was conducted by deception or psychological burden, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was interfered with I and H’s exercise of rights. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

C. The public prosecutor (unfair sentencing on Defendant A)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Defendant A