All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of occupational breach of trust due to Defendant C’s occupational breach of trust, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the grounds of Defendant E’s appeal, the court below was justified in finding Defendant E guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of a crime of violating the Trademark Act and the establishment of a common principal offender.

3. On the grounds of the prosecutor's appeal, the court below found that among the facts charged in this case against Defendant B and Defendant C, each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (a dispatch) is committed, among the facts charged in this case against Defendant C, that the ex-factory price was computerized and the ex-factory price was returned due to the computer operation related to discount rate, and that there was a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (a dispatch) due to the purchase of new stocks at the first to 41 times in the order of the crime list among the facts charged in this case against Defendant C, and that there was no proof of each crime as to the occupational breach of trust due to the illegal use of the ex-factory price among the facts charged in this case against Defendant D.