The judgment below

Among the parts against Defendant B, Defendant D, and Defendant F, each of them is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for three years;

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) although the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes are stated only as “misunderstanding of facts”; (b) however, according to the content of the appeal, it appears that the misapprehension of legal principles

The same is also applicable to Defendant A and other Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.

As a media company like NAV executes an advertisement on the basis of the total amount of media expenses, even if T Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “T”) brings 20% of the total amount of media expenses with commission for media agency, there is no difference in the actual amount of advertising materials, compared with the case where the amount including the above amount is paid to the media company.

In addition, unlike newspapers or TV advertisements, there is no agreement between the State AC (hereinafter “AC Company”) and T on the commission for online advertisements.

Therefore, the amount ultimately attributable to the media company when the defendant claimed the media cost to AC company does not constitute facts that constitute the basis for judgment as to the disposal of the property of AC company. Therefore, the defendant's implied consent to the claim.

Even if this is a deception, it can not be said to be a deception.

The court below recognized that AC Company's orders for advertising materials amounting to 125% of the budget for advertising expenses (median cost) were made.

The explanation also differs from the fact.

The extra funds as stated in the judgment of the court below, which was created by the misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, are created for the purpose of using them for T not for personal collection but for business expenses, employee encouragement, etc. Therefore, there is no intention of unlawful acquisition by the defendant.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too vague.