All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the Defendants on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

The judgment below

Since the Defendants and the Prosecutor filed an appeal on the guilty portion, the dismissal part of the above prosecution was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants’ assertion (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles on recognition of admissibility of the part of X’s prosecutor’s statement in X’s prosecutor’s office, and the second prosecutor’s examination protocol against Defendant A, the lower court acknowledged admissibility on the ground that the part of the deceased’s statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, but the X’s statement cannot be deemed as being made under particularly reliable circumstances. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on recognition of admissibility of expert evidence.

2) The Defendants, either explicitly or implicitly, agreed to manufacture products on the basis of effective ingredients or agreed to do so by mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to deception and intentional recognition of deception.

In light of the fact that there was belief that there was no deception, or that there was no intention to deception, in view of the fact that there was a judgment of below the content and an agreement on compensation based on effective ingredients after delivery.

3) Since Defendant B was not involved in the design of manufacturing of the instant product or the process of determining its ingredients, Defendant B’s misunderstanding the legal principles as to the recognition of a principal offender as a joint principal offender in Defendant B’s joint principal offender, the above Defendant did not support the joint principal offender’s liability.

B. The lower court sentenced the Defendants to the punishment of the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months).