The judgment below

The guilty portion against Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of 2,500,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, E, and F1), the instant certificate of supply of materials was made on the premise of factory storage. Thus, there was no intention to prepare false official documents, and since the construction was conducted after the delivery of materials in compliance with the written confirmation of supply of the instant materials, there was no intention to commit occupational breach of trust. Thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 2.5 million) is too unreasonable. (b) The sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 2.5 million) by Defendant B (a fine of KRW 8 months and a suspended sentence of two years) is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant E) The above Defendant directly examined the construction materials and received instructions by phone call from Defendant A, a public official in charge, so the judgment of the court below which found Defendant E guilty of this part of the facts charged without the intention of occupational breach of trust, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The judgment of the court below which found Defendant F to be guilty of this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) according to the construction specifications of this case by Defendant F, E, Defendant F, the field inspection can also be conducted; and (b) it was difficult to supply materials due to the lack of the supply of materials after conducting on-site inspection; and (c) it was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment; (b) at the time of Defendant B’s public offering, the products were all produced; and (c) the examination certificate was prepared in accordance with the direction to raise the early execution of the Defendant B’s budget, a public official in charge; and (d) without the intention to commit occupational breach of trust, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles that found Defendant F guilty of this part of the charges.

C. The lower court’s judgment.