All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of eight months.

(b).

The Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ special injury as to the summary of the grounds of appeal do not constitute assaulting G and inflicting bodily injury on the same person as indicated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in violation of the rules of evidence.

Defendant

On January 19, 2016, the defendant A's defense counsel asserted that Gap's public conflict, fraud, embezzlement, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act were erroneous, and the defendant A's defense counsel suggested the reasons for appeal by citing the summary of the oral argument of the court below in the statement of the reasons for appeal. On February 20, 2016, the defense counsel's opinion was supplemented for the reasons for appeal.

Defendant

Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to A’s conflict, and Defendant A did not assault G, and paid money in a non-official reward.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the money paid to Korea is not used for the defendant A, but used for the expenses incurred by G's responsibility.

However, the judgment below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of a mistake of facts and an attack.

Defendant

When considering the circumstances under the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to A's fraud with K, the court below found the guilty of this part of the judgment below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts, deception in fraud, and the establishment of fraud, etc., although there is no deception as stated in the facts charged, and the criminal intent is not recognized to be acquired by deception.

G independently operated F after joining F in F, and during that process, in order to generate monetary damage to Defendant A and compensate it, G was paid KRW 60 million by the mother-friendly K in the name of compensation for damage.

Defendant

A, when arranging the F's passbook on July 2, 2012, there is a business problem because the balance of the passbook is insufficient.