The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

Punishment for A shall be determined by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

Defendant

A above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (E is a company which has registered its business regularly and the company has requested cooperation, and thus the company has failed to do so) and unfair sentencing.

Defendant

B: Error of mistake (no defendant A was involved in soliciting the nominal name holder), unreasonable sentencing; 2. Determination of this Court

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants’ ex officio, the first instance court’s judgment is no longer maintained due to the subsequent changes in circumstances that led to the prosecutor’s immediate examination of the grounds for appeal, and the prosecutor’s examination of the facts charged against Defendant B remains 40,43, 77, and 790,000 in the list of crimes in the first instance judgment, and the remainder of the facts charged against Defendant B remains 40,43, 77, and 79 in the list of crimes in the first instance judgment, and this court’s approval of the indictment was legally changed.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts, etc. is subject to the judgment of this court, and this is a separate examination.

B. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court in light of the records as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, etc., all of the facts charged of this case against Defendant A is acceptable, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the judgment, and thus, Defendant A’s allegation of this issue cannot be accepted.

C. According to the testimony, etc. of the first instance court of M, N, and J as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, it can be acknowledged that Defendant B recommended and consulted the lending of the means of access to the crime against Defendant A (No. 40, 43, 77, and 79 in the list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance court) with respect to the crime against Defendant A (No. 40, 43, 77, and 79 in the list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance court) or attempted the preparation