Of the first judgment, the part against Defendant A and the second judgment shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of Defendant A (the first instance court, the second instance court, and the second instance court) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) knew that Defendant A did not obtain the right to dispose of scrap metal in the former K site on a conclusive basis, and that the amount received from Defendant B would not be used for the deposit. However, the first instance court which acquitted Defendant B of this error is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even though the first instance court, which acquitted Defendant A of this error, did not err by misapprehending the fact, or by misapprehending the legal principles, even though the first instance court's punishment against Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A of unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable, it is unreasonable to deem that the first instance court's punishment against Defendant A of unjust sentencing (the first instance court) is too unreasonable.

2. In the judgment of ex officio (the part A) of the judgment of the court of first instance, prior to the judgment of the prosecutor on the grounds for each appeal against the defendant A, the defendant A appealed each of the judgment below, and the defendant A appealed each of the judgment of the court below, and the court decided to hold the above appeal cases together with other appeals cases.

However, since each crime of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single punishment should be sentenced within the scope of the term of punishment for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, each judgment of the court below on the defendant A cannot be maintained any more.

3. Judgment on the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant B)

A. The first instance court’s judgment did not believe the N’s statement and accusation that correspond to the facts charged, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, Defendant B made each statement at the court of the lower court, the police, and the prosecution.