We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendant

A The fine of fine of KRW 2,00,000, and the defendant corporation B shall be punished by fine of KRW 4,000,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) No. 1 of the alleged facts charged does not specify the date and time of the commission of a principal offender and an aided offender, and the first instance court committed an error that temporarily stated that the date and time of the commission of a principal offender and an aided offender is not the date and time

2) There is no aiding and abetting nor intentional act against the Defendants 2’ assertion.

B. Sentencing 1 Sentencing 200,000 won (Defendant A: fine of 2 million won, Defendant B: fine of 4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the crime of this case against the Defendants is a aiding and abetting offender, and must be sentenced to the punishment within the scope of the term of punishment necessary to be mitigated pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act. However, the judgment of the first instance court, which neglected aiding and abetting it and determined the punishment by omitting aiding and abetting it, was determined by the punishment. In this respect, the judgment of the first instance court was no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the allegation No. 1 and 2, and the reasons for the judgment of the first instance court and the reasons for the appeal by the Defendants are closely compared with the reasons for appeal by the Defendants. The Defendants, even in the first instance court, asserted the same as the reasons for the above appeal, and the summary of the evidence in the judgment of the first instance court is the same, and the Defendants’ assertion was rejected in detail in the “judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion”.

The first deliberation decision (including the case recognized as the date and time of committing the crime by aiding and abetting the screen) is justifiable, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. Conclusion of the Defendants’ mistake and mistake of facts.