The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 5,00,000 won, and C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (the 2 years of suspended execution of 4 years, and the 6 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court and Defendant A and C is unfair.

B. The prosecutor (defendant B) instructed Defendant B to conclude the above total sales contract in a large frame and reported to Defendant B the process of concluding the above total sales contract. The fact that Defendant B did not participate in the conclusion of the above total sales contract, and it is very unusual to prepare a letter of payment to the effect that B will take over all responsibility under the above total sales contract ex post, even though it did not participate in the conclusion of the above total sales contract. In addition, K testified that Defendant B was the "mis" after the lapse of 2 to 3 days after concluding the above total sales contract, and Defendant B testified that it was the "misI". This testimony was contrary to Defendant B's defense that he was aware of the conclusion of the above total sales contract, and other words that were contrary to Defendant B's product prior to the conclusion of the above total sales contract. In light of the fact that Defendant B and the date that Defendant B visited the office of Defendant B, Defendant B conspired with the press company to gather news, Defendant B and Defendant B could be sufficiently acknowledged as the amount of money by deceiving Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance concerning the misunderstanding of facts (public prosecutor) and the principle of direct examination, there are special circumstances to deem that the judgment of the court of first instance was clearly erroneous, or the result of further examination of evidence conducted by the court of first instance until the closing of argument in the appellate trial is examined.