All of the appeals by the prosecutor against the Defendants and Defendant C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the statute of limitations for the crime that Defendant E transferred and accepted the illegal manufacturing guns to C was not completed. 2) As to each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants on unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment of August, suspension of execution of two years, etc.; Defendant B: fine of KRW 4 million; Defendant C: imprisonment of October, suspension of execution of three years; and Defendant C: fine of KRW 5 million for the crime of Article 2-B as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment; Defendant D: fine of KRW 4 million; Defendant E: Imprisonment of eight months for each crime of Article 1-A as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment; three years for suspension of execution; imprisonment of one million for a violation of the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc.; imprisonment of KRW 5 million for a violation of the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives; imprisonment of KRW 16 years for a suspended execution of execution of one year; and imprisonment of one year for a violation of the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 2012, the lower court found Defendant E’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the prosecutor’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, sentenced Defendant E to acquittal on the ground that the part of the receipt of illegal manufacturing guns for the first time on the ground that the statutory penalty constitutes imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding seven million won under Article 72 subparag. 1, Article 19 subparag. 3, and Article 13(1)3 of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc., and that the statute of limitations under Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 249(1) subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act was filed five years after

The reasoning of the judgment of the court below shall be recorded, and the judgment of the court below and the trial are duly adopted.