All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendants conspired to deception C at the time of the instant case and did not receive the premium from C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the prosecutor (one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendants’ assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine, even if the Defendants conspired and received the premium at the time of the instant case, it may be recognized that the Defendants, even if they were to receive the premium at the time of the instant case, by deceiving C as stated in the facts constituting the lower judgment, and was paid KRW 17 million in total as premium from C with the knowledge of such circumstances.

① In the lease contract made between E and Defendant A, it clearly states that “Lessee is unable to transfer the right of lease without a lessor’s consent, and if the lessee violates this, the lessor may cancel the lease.” Thus, it seems that both parties, as the husband and wife, knew that the Defendants, who leased and operated the business office of this case, should obtain the consent of E Co., Ltd. in order to transfer the right of lease normally to C at the time of this case.

(2) On the other hand, in the lease contract above, the lessee may not claim the lessor or the lessee for the premium for facility costs upon the termination of the contract.

"The contents are clearly stated, and the Defendants are entitled to the right of lease when they are aware of the fact that E corporation receives premium from C, which includes a reasonable amount of facility cost, and transfer the right of lease to C.