The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the following grounds: (a) part of the facts charged in the instant case regarding the form of interference with business and the entry of a special structure; and (b) convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

However, inasmuch as the prosecutor and the Defendants appealed only the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, and did not appeal all the prosecutor and the Defendants with respect to the acquittal portion of the reasons, the acquittal portion of the reasons pursuant to the principle of no appeal shall also be judged in the trial, but since the Defendants already left the object of the trial from the object of attack and defense between the parties, it cannot be determined in the trial.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, with respect to the part on acquittal, the reasoning of the lower judgment is to follow the conclusion of the lower judgment, and it is not separately determined.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (a fine of KRW 1.5 million is imposed on the Defendants, a fine of KRW 1.5 million is imposed on Defendants B, and a fine of KRW 1 million is imposed on Defendants C) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment sentenced by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendants is too unhued and unjust.

3. As to the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, we examine the Defendants’ respective arguments of unfair sentencing. The Defendants denied the crimes in the lower court but acknowledged all the facts charged of this case and reflect their mistakes in depth. The crime of intrusion on the structure of this case and obstruction of business was the principal cause of occupational breach of trust, such as the establishment of a victim’s competitive research institute, which received an additional allowance from the Defendants to receive an ordinary prohibition fee, and there are circumstances to take into account the circumstances leading to the crime.