The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A In fines of KRW 10,00,000, Defendant 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) In the case of the crime Nos. 7 through 17 of the annexed list of crimes against mistake of facts (1), there is no fact that the Defendant was involved or ordered to commit the crime, and there is no fact that the Defendant conspireds with the accomplices. (2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and two years of collection) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, additional collection of 6.6 million won) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant E and Defendant F1) The facts constituting the crime of false entry, such as each official electronic records, etc., for which the judgment of the lower court was made final and conclusive, and each of the facts charged in this case constitutes a blanket crime. 2) The lower court’s sentencing (Defendant E: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, additional collection of 5.1 million won, Defendant F: Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and additional collection of 3.3 million won) is too unreasonable, and the calculation of each additional collection charge was also erroneous.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal, the prosecutor ex officio examined the case at the fifth trial of the court below, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the contents as stated below (Article 1, 2, 4-B, and 5 of the original judgment) among the facts charged against Defendant A, Defendant E, and Defendant F, and the facts charged against Defendant C as stated in the facts charged against Defendant C, and the facts charged against the violation of the Commercial Act (Article 1, 2, 4-2, and 5 of the original judgment). The subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission. The judgment of the court below against Defendant C was in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus,

【Revised Indictment】

1. Defendant A and Defendant E’s co-principal is the representative of “A certified judicial scrivener office” as a certified judicial scrivener, and Defendant E is the bond company that operates credit business in the name of “H”.

The Defendants, as the bond company, are corporations of Defendant E without capital.