Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part of the case against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

1. Maintenance of removal from a port;

A. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: the suspended sentence of 3 years in June 1 and 6, and the second instance court: the fine of 1 million won in the case of the Defendant A (the first instance court’s sentencing against the lower court’s judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. In consideration of the following facts, the prosecutor 1) did not recognize the fact that there was a conspiracy between Defendant B and Defendant A as to the instant property damage teacher, but did not err in the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant B.

① In light of the fact that Defendant B, along with Defendant A and N, examined the power of attorney to remove goods and signed and sealed them, and written a written estimate of service costs incurred in the process of N’s removal services, Defendant B should be deemed to have recruited Defendant A and the instant container removal teacher around September 2012.

② Although the victim refused to voluntarily remove containers several times from the beginning, the Defendants concluded in advance a contract for the employment of security service with the station company for security service, and Defendant B had the intention to illegally remove the instant container from the beginning.

③ Defendant B was able to receive the balance of land purchase and sale from Defendant A with which the instant container was to be removed, and thus, Defendant B was interested in the illegal removal of the container.

2) The first instance court’s punishment against Defendant A, who was unfair in sentencing, is too unfluent and unfair.

2. The court below found Defendant B not guilty of the facts charged as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts. In light of the following facts acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the court below’s decision is just and there is no error of law by mistake of facts.

① The power of attorney for the removal of this case does not contain any content regarding illegal removal, and was made in Defendant B’s name.