All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ appeal

A. In fact, the Defendants did not say that G, the president, and vice president, of the F, who are the president of the “E” source located in Ansan-si D (hereinafter “EAB”) and G, the vice president, were lebs.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant A had no record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and Defendant B has no record of criminal punishment, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Defendants asserted that the lower court did not make a statement to the effect that “the victims are Lebi” was “the victims,” as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court: (a) the Defendants operated the Habi in Pyeongtaek-si.

The J appears to refer the Defendants to the victims, and later notified the victims of the fact by telephone. At the time, the J and the victims were aware of the fact, and ② the victims had been operating sources in the P when he was aware of the fact.

In light of the fact that K calls to the victims and confirmed the fact more, and the fact that K calls to the victims, and the Defendants were not aware of the victims’ G at the time, the Defendants may be recognized as having made the victims a statement to the effect that they were the victims.

The decision was determined.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. The instant crime of determining the illegality of sentencing is the case where the Defendants, who worked as instructors at the E level, worked as instructors.