The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud caused by the Defendant A and C’s joint criminal conduct) Defendant A refers to the inspection machine of this case (hereinafter “the inspection machine of this case”).

) The victim Nmedical Center (hereinafter “Medical Center”) was not aware of the fact that it was supplied to another hospital for use, and as if it was a new good, C and its completion were the victim Nmedical Center (hereinafter “Medical Center”).

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud caused by the Defendant A and E’s joint criminal conduct) BB, BC, and Defendant E’s statement, and the operation equipment of the instant internal-use tyractor (hereinafter “instant operation equipment”).

In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the unit price and Defendant A’s career, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged, despite the conspiracy of Defendants A and E, even though it could be acknowledged that the aforementioned surgery was used as a used product with knowledge of being used goods, there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment below. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended execution, one year and six years of community service order, one year and six months of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts.

The lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, C, from the end of April 2014 to the end of May, 2014, the Prosecutor stated that the Defendant A was a old inventory of the instant inspection machine imported from the Defendant at the prosecution and used the said medical device for the use of the two parts once. However, the Defendant A responded to his fine for negligence.

In light of the fact that Defendant A stated to the purport, whether the instant inspector was imported.