The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for two years and six months, for Defendant B, and for Defendant C.

On July 15, 2014, the summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) recording a conversation between the Defendants and their executives and employees, which is the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the admissibility of the recorded files by the Defendants; (b) recording a conversation between the Defendants and their executives and employees; (c) copying a file recorded in their first cell phone by not the original, but by its author W. It cannot be deemed that the original copy was copied; and (d) at the time, the Defendant A recognized the excessive claim for the transport cost under an imminent situation in which he was unable to receive the transport cost for three months from K, it cannot be deemed that the statement was made in accordance with the pressure or interview of the K executives and employees, who seem to have the same attitude to keep in transactions with I, and that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.

Therefore, the court below, even though the above evidence is inadmissible, has admitted it as evidence, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts concerning the admissibility of the recording file or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

Defendant

C’s “The details of excessive claims from 2011 to 6, 2014” among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence, “the details of excessive claims from 2011 to 6, 2014.” Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the evidence of the prosecutor’s evidence Nos. 20 is prepared and submitted in the state of being imprised due to intimidation and revolving on the part of

The court below's finding of the above evidence was erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of relevant legal principles.

The Defendants alleged the misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “K”) by the Defendants did not invite the Defendants to commit a breach of trust against K (hereinafter “K”) as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Defendant

C As stated in this part of the facts charged.