The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and fines of 150,000,000 won, Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and fine of 153,652,500 won, Defendant B: Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months and fine of 226,200,000 won) are too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor (Defendant B)’s protocol of interrogation of the suspect in the prosecution as to AF, as shown in No. 29 No. 5 of the attached list of crimes in the indictment of this case (hereinafter “not guilty portion against Defendant B”), Defendant B appears to have written the “Sex” in the indictment of this case and the written judgment of the court below in light of the 236 pages of the trial record and 938,168 pages of the evidence, etc., as shown in No. 29 of the attached list of crimes in the indictment of this case (hereinafter “not guilty portion against Defendant B”).

Although it is sufficiently recognized that two 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 3,000 1,00

2. The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio (as to Defendant B, the part of the instant charges against Defendant B, which violated the Medical Devices Act (hereinafter “the part of the violation of the Medical Devices Act against Defendant B”), was requested to change the contents of the offense and summary of evidence as stated in the “a summary of the facts and evidence” under the judgment below. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the part of the violation of the Medical Devices Act against Defendant B in this respect cannot be exempted from reversal.

However, even if there are reasons for reversal ex officio, the prosecutor's argument of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to Defendant B is still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following 3-A

We examine this in this paragraph.

3. Determination on the grounds for appeal by a public prosecutor and Defendant A

A. The prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B’s Defendant B’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, and Defendant B’s oral statement