The judgment below

Among them, the guilty part against the Defendants and the false statement of transaction are prepared.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant A’s assertion of mistake was made that Defendant C was aware of the fact that Defendant C had committed the crime of alteration and alteration of official documents, use of altered and altered official documents, and use of falsified documents, and fraud only after hearing the statement that Defendant A reported the profits by cutting the weight of beef to Defendant C around May 2015, the lower court recognized the joint principal offender with Defendant C during the period from August 12, 2014 to May 7, 2015, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Defendant C (A) was aware of the difference in weight by actually participating in the management of D and directly preparing a purchase and sale slip between July 16, 2014 and August 9, 2014, Defendant C (A). As such, Defendant C’s joint principal offender with Defendant C regarding the alteration of each official document, the exercise of altered official document, the alteration of private document, the exercise of falsified document, and fraud during the above period. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) In addition, Defendant C’s withdrawal from a shoulder wound during the period from March 15, 2014 to April 1, 2014, and the alteration of each official document between March 20, 2014 and March 21, 2014, and the use of the altered official document, the use of the altered official document, the alteration of private document, the use of the falsified document, and fraud are not recognized. However, the lower court recognized the crime for the said period, and thus, erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) The prosecutor (A) committed an alteration of each official document, an event of altered official document, and an alteration of private document from July 16, 2014 to August 9, 2014, on the ground that Defendant A was aware of the difference in weight by substantially participating in the management of D Co., Ltd. and directly preparing a purchase and sales slip.