All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (the preparation of a qualification-based private document) Defendant A, as indicated in the facts charged, stated in the instant merger agreement in the “H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) representative director G representative A” and operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “E”) in the name of the above A.

Although it was true that the representative director A’s seal was affixed and sealed, since the N comprehensively delegated the authority related to the merger procedure by G was delegated with the authority related to the preparation of the merger contract in this case, Defendant A did not have prepared the merger contract in this case with qualification as agent of G, but the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The judgment of the court below of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (a) believed that Defendant B had the authority to prepare the instant merger agreement with the NN that comprehensively delegated the authority to prepare the instant merger agreement with respect to the process of the merger, and Defendant B believed that Defendant B had the authority to prepare the instant merger agreement with respect to the preparation of the instant merger agreement, thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B had the intention to prepare and exercise the instant merger agreement with the qualification of another person. However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of all the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant B received a subcontract for electrical construction from H through an agreement on the merger agreement between G and the instant absorption agreement. As such, Defendant B merely filed a lawsuit against H on the claim for the agreed amount under the recognition of the validity of the instant absorption agreement. Thus, Defendant B is the same.