All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 4, 2014, Defendant A (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a period of one year and six months for the re-election of the electronic records in the Daejeon District Court’s support, etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2014.

Criminal facts of the above final judgment and the facts charged of this case are acts committed according to a single and continuous criminal intent, and are the same as the benefit and protection of the law, and thus, they are in a single crime.

Therefore, since the above final judgment shall be effective to the facts charged in this case, the facts charged in this case shall be sentenced to acquittal as it comes under the final judgment.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles since it found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence (unfair sentencing) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, Defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment, and Defendant E: 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine: (a) Defendant A was sentenced on April 4, 2014 to imprisonment with labor on the part of the Daejeon District Court’s support for the rehabilitation of the public electronic records, the crime of reproducing the public electronic records; and (b) the judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2014 (hereinafter “relevant final and conclusive judgment”); (c) the crime of the final and conclusive judgment was committed in collusion with P; (d) the Defendant applied for registration of the establishment of a false legal entity on 14 occasions from January 16, 2013 to March 13, 2013; and (e) the Defendant exercised the right to enter and allow perusal of the false fact in the commercial electronic data processing system, which is the public electronic records, on 14 occasions; and (e) the fact that the account was sold in cash from January 1, 2013 to March 13, 2013.

However, the relevant final and conclusive judgment and the facts charged in this case are different from the trade name of each corporation and the competent registry and account number.