The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 10,00,000 won, and Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) At least 50% of the pre-delivery supplied by Defendant A who participated in the S business and supplied by Defendant A with mistake of facts, was produced by the said Defendant, and the pre-delivery was only delivered by mixing some of the pre-deliverys.

Since fishermen were required to release a large amount of 5 cm or more even though it is difficult to raise electric seeds and seedlings within 24m in the Ulsan-do area, in order to comply with the above request, the Defendant was bound to supply them by mixing with the complete mountain uniforms for at least 24 months.

In light of the circumstances of this case, Defendant A did not deceiving Ulle-gun, fishing village fraternity, and did not have the intent to acquire funds by fraud.

In particular, it is deemed that the fishing village fraternity was aware that Defendant A actively requested the delivery of a large amount of electric uniform and that it was mixed with the full-time uniform. Therefore, the business expenses directly paid to the said Defendant at the expense of the fishing village fraternity should be excluded from the amount of damages.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of all the charges of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the background and degree of the instant crime of unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, Defendant C (1) erroneous determination of facts, and Defendant C, at the time of the discharge of the previous uniforms of this case, silented Defendant A to release a large amount of electric uniforms according to the fishermen’s intent. However, Defendant B and Defendant C did not know the exact total quantity, monthly age, etc. of the previous uniforms discharged, and they conducted an examination according to the practice, guidelines, etc. until the time.

Therefore, since the number of Defendant B and Defendant C stated in the goods inspection report cannot be readily concluded to be false, the above Defendants did not have the intention to commit a false official document preparation.

In addition, the delivery of a large variety of uniforms by Defendant B and Defendant C is made.