The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and C shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1 was aware of the fact-finding that the dumping show price was legally modified, and the sale and purchase of dumping show was made between Defendant A and the victim. Also, Defendant C was aware that there was a coal transport date between the above Defendant A and the victim. Therefore, Defendant C did not intentionally induce the victim. Even if Defendant C was guilty, the lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim even if the Defendant C was guilty.

B. In light of the nature of the crime committed by the prosecutor in this case, the sentence of the court below (the imprisonment of August, the imprisonment of June, the suspended sentence of one year, and the imprisonment of one year) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. According to the ex officio judgment records with respect to Defendant A, Defendant A was sentenced on December 16, 2016 to the violation of the Labor Standards Act, the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, the violation of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, the term of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, the term of suspended execution two years, and the term of community service 80 hours on December 24, 2016. On March 31, 2017, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspended execution for one year, and 40 hours for community service, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 8, 2017.

Therefore, since the crime of the judgment below and each of the above crimes for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it takes into account equity in the case of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and determines the punishment by examining whether to exempt mitigation of punishment. Since the court below did not consider such circumstances, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be maintained in this respect

3. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., Defendant C, at the time, was the optical-military acid of L (State).