All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing in sentencing)’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (a) relating to a rice sale contract, Defendant A entered into a rice sale contract (hereinafter “LF”) as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment in order to minimize damages to LFF (hereinafter “LF”), and Defendant B would compensate for the difference in the supplied value.

As a result, there was no intention of breach of trust.

In addition, since a contract for the sale of rice of this case concluded by Defendant A is invalid as an act of assuming an obligation in violation of the mandatory law, there is no risk of property loss.

B) As to the forgery of a private document and the uttering of a falsified investigation document relating to the instant rice sales contract, Defendant A had a comprehensive power of attorney as the manager of the LF at the time of the instant case, and thus, Defendant A was authorized to prepare a document in the name of the LFC.

C) The lower court’s sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2) The sentencing of Defendant D (unfair sentencing) by the lower court (one year and six months) is excessively unreasonable.

3) Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing of sentencing) is limited to the fact that Defendant B entered into a sales contract to purchase rice with LCF from February 2014 to November 2014, and there was no fact that Defendant B entered into a sales contract to purchase rice from December 2014 to May 2015, and Defendant B entered into a sales contract to purchase rice. Defendant A entered into a future contract by using Defendant B’s certificate of seal imprint and seal imprint. Defendant B did not take part in the crime of breach of trust, etc. in relation to the instant rice sales contract.

B. At the time of the instant case, Defendant A had the authority to make a document in the name of the NA as the manager of the NAC at the time of the instant case.