The judgment below

Defendant F, H, and I shall be reversed.

Defendant

F. F. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, Defendant H and I.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant E did not conspired to commit the instant crime in advance with the Z, and Defendant E established U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”).

(2) The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) is too unlimited and unfair. The lower court’s sentence (one year of imprisonment) is so unreasonable that it is too unreasonable. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment and operation of the instant crime.

B. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of facts by mistake of facts was aware that Defendant G was a normal company performing legitimate duties, and did not invite the instant crime in advance with Z, and there was no intent or functional control over joint processing, which is the requisite for the establishment of a joint principal offender. Defendant G merely performs remittance and liaison duties, and is merely an aiding and abetting crime. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant H’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant F, I guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence) and obstruction of business by conspiracy with Z, E, H, G, etc., among the facts charged in this case. However, according to the investigation agency's statement, the statement of the other party, testimony of AC, etc., it is sufficiently recognized that the above defendants actively participated in other households, such as ordering and encouraging the occupation of the other households beyond simply one household under a daily contract. Thus, the court below acquitted the defendant of this error of law and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The court below's decision on the acquittal of the defendant is erroneous of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. The court below's punishment (the defendant F, I: imprisonment of June suspension of execution, two years, probation, community service, 160 hours) of unfair sentencing (the defendant F, I.

2. Determination on Defendant E’s grounds of appeal

A. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts.