All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Each sentence of the court below against the Defendants A and B (the defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended sentence; 4 months of suspended sentence; 1 year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

Although the public prosecutor (defendant C)’s representative, location, work and name are identical to each other, the substantial identity between the defendant’s social welfare foundation C (hereinafter “the defendant foundation”) and the defendant’s social welfare foundation C (hereinafter “the defendant foundation”) can be fully recognized, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the identity of the corporation, and misapprehending the legal principles on the defendant’s identity, on the ground that it is difficult for the defendant A to be deemed the employer of the defendant foundation.

Judgment

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below's decision that the defendant corporation acquitted the defendant corporation of this case on the ground that it is difficult to see that the defendant corporation has proved the specific direction and supervision relationship with regard to the act stated in the facts charged in this case by the defendant corporation A without any reasonable doubt is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

The Defendants recognized the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing as to the instant crime and are in profoundly against the Defendant’s depth, Defendant A is an initial criminal without any criminal record, and Defendant B did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine, and the change of the form and quality after the instant crime was restored to the original state, etc. are favorable circumstances to the Defendants.

However, the crime of this case is the period of crime, area of conversion, and scale of the project.