The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles, and the victim Gyeong-nam Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "victim Gyeong-nam") occupied by the victim Gyeong-nam Co., Ltd.

The special iron plate equivalent to KRW 76,416,00 (hereinafter “the special iron plate of this case”) is owned by the I stock company (hereinafter “I”). Since the Defendants conspired with F, G, and H, who are officers and employees of I belonging to F, G, and H, put the special iron plate of this case in collusion with F, G, and H in the course of performing their duties, the Defendants are ultimately taking the “self-owned goods” and thus, the Defendants constitute a crime of obstructing the exercise of their rights.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, among the facts charged in this case.

The above punishment, which the court below committed against the defendants, is unfair because it is too uneasible to the defendants.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority is made, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case against the Defendants as follows. Since the subject of the judgment by this court was changed by permitting it, the judgment of the court below on the charges of this case cannot be maintained as it is.

However, despite such ex officio grounds for reversal, the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles pertaining to the facts charged prior to the alteration is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case in relation to excessive relation to the facts charged (hereinafter “instant facts charged after the alteration”) after the alteration of the indictment. As such, it should be determined.

After the change before and after the change, Defendant A is a director of the production department of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), Defendant B is the production department of D, E is the vice president of D, and F, G, and H are each I.