The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B for one year and ten months.

A. Since there is insufficient evidence to deem that the calculation of the surcharge by the court below is not specified in the criteria, and that Defendant A obtained criminal proceeds equivalent to KRW 22 million and KRW 15 million by Defendant B as a statement of the approximate trend of the Defendants, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the portion of the surcharge.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, additional imposition amounts to 22,00,000 won, Defendant B: imprisonment for one year and ten months, additional imposition amounts to 15,000,000 won, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, probation for three years, probation for two years, community service order 200 hours, additional collection amounts to 7,700,000 won, Defendant E: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, probation for three years, probation for two years, community service order 200 hours, additional collection amounts to 7,00,000).

2. Determination

A. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor ex officio judgment changed the part of the facts charged against the Defendants, “Defendants, G establishes a “age corporation” from the part of the facts charged against the Defendants to “the Defendant and G establish a “age corporation” without actually making any contribution due to the lack of actual intent to operate a corporation,” and applied for permission to change the facts charged concerning the false entry in public electronic records, etc. and the exercise thereof (Provided, That the revised facts charged as stated in paragraphs (5) and (6) as stated in the revised facts charged, the court permitted it, thereby changing the subject of the judgment, and the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below as to the Defendants cannot be maintained.

Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, Defendant A and B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the surcharge is still subject to the judgment of this court.