The judgment below

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

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. The lower court acquitted Defendant A and B of the part concerning the submission of a false statement certificate, and the part concerning the attached Table 1-2(1) and 3-5(5) in the judgment.

Accordingly, Defendant A and B appealed against each of the guilty parts, and the prosecutor appealed only from the part of the crime list (1) 4 and 5 of the guilty part of the guilty part and the guilty part of the defendant B, and did not appeal from the part of the guilty part of the defendant A and the part of the crime list (1) 3 of the acquittal part of the reasons for the defendant A and the guilty part of the reasons for the defendant B.

In such a case, the entire acquittal portion of the reasoning is transferred to the appellate court along with the conviction portion in accordance with the principle of non-guilty appeal. However, the acquittal portion of the reason for which the prosecutor did not appeal is not yet appealed from the object of attack and defense between the parties and it is not possible for the court to re-determine this part (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below should be followed with the conclusion of the judgment on the

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) As to the use of nuclear fuel materials exceeding the permitted scope of annual usage [the use of nuclear fuel materials exceeding the permitted scope] under the proviso of Article 45(1) and Article 51(1)4 of the Nuclear Safety Act, since the matters concerning the alteration of annual use of nuclear fuel materials are subject to “report” rather than “permission”, the act of failing to report on the above matters is not subject to criminal punishment, but subject to administrative fines, but is not subject to administrative fines, the lower court convicted

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months) is too unreasonable. B. Defendant B’s assertion that the sentence imposed by the lower court (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.