The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B and C shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (only the primary action of defense) the Defendants, rather than their own intent, removed the flag facilities as described in the facts charged of this case, according to the direction of J, the president of the Foundation E, a foundation.

B. The reasoning of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (a fine of KRW 3 million for each of the costs) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by giving a detailed statement on the determination thereof.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in comparison with the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Unlike the judgment below, there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the unfair argument of sentencing is that the sentencing of Defendant A is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing review, it is unreasonable to maintain the sentencing of the first instance judgment as it is, only in the case where there are circumstances such as that it is unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance.