The judgment below

The convictions against Defendant A, B, and D shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

Imprisonment with prison labor for A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant A (1) has to be acquitted of the following facts charged against the Defendant for the reasons as stated in the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(A) On November 1, 201, the Defendant was aware that there was no problem on the part of the Chinese factory manager in China, who manufactured a REA trademark, that the Defendant could attach a REA trademark. The location of the REA was also LYCA, and there was no participation in Defendant B, etc. in preparing or submitting a false supply performance certificate, supplier certificate, and test report.

(B) Although Defendant B did not deliver to Defendant B and did not participate in the delivery of the product information labels by forging and forging the product information labels, even though Defendant B did not deliver them to Defendant B, and Defendant B did not participate in the delivery of the product information labels.

(C) The Defendant supplied normal products to Defendant B, etc., and did not instruct Defendant B, etc. to prepare a false supplier certificate, a false manufacturer certification certificate, and a certificate of inspection and repair guarantee.

In addition, it is unreasonable to punish a seller as a fraud on the ground that the letter of promise to supply the good is prepared by the seller, not the manufacturer.

(D) The Defendant attempted to commit fraud related to the supply of an electronic scambamer for the detection of burial workers at the Army Headquarters, but was incomplete products, and the Defendant et al. had been placed to waive the contract, and was actively engaged in the actual supply or to pass through the examination process.