The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defense counsel of Defendant A and Defendant B stated in the statement of grounds for appeal on November 17, 2014, erroneous facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and unfair sentencing as grounds for appeal.

On the third trial of the trial court, all of the previous arguments of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were withdrawn.

Defendant

B’s defense counsel also stated in the statement of grounds of appeal on November 14, 2014 the “unfair sentencing based on the mistake of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles” as the grounds of appeal, and argued that ① the fact-finding that Defendant B led to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and ② the excessive acceptance of the acquired amount of Y-related fraud by Defendant B was erroneous.

However, Defendant B alleged that all of the facts charged in this case have been led to confession during the trial of the above grounds for appeal and the trial of the party. As such, Defendant B acknowledged that the grounds for unfair sentencing were disputed, and Defendant B explicitly stated that the grounds for appeal are withdrawn during the third trial of the party.

Therefore, all of the grounds for appeal by the above Defendants are based on unreasonable sentencing.

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and four months, and Defendant B for one year and eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant A and C (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution, community service, 300 hours of fine, 50 million won) of the Prosecutor is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, and the Prosecutor are both unreasonable and unfair. A. The grounds for appeal are also determined as well.

The crime of fraud in this case was committed by the Defendants in collusion with the relevant persons in order to supply the false test report on the performance of masting materials used in the train operation device, or as if the masting materials produced by another manufacturer were manufactured by himself, by deceiving the Korea Railroad Corporation, thereby deceiving the proceeds of the goods. The contents of the deception, the period and frequency of the crime, and the amount of fraud.