The judgment below

The convictions against the Defendants and the acquittals against Defendants A, B, and C, respectively, (E).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, C, and D1 of the facts charged with the violation of the Foreign Trade Act (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) filed a public prosecution with the purport that the Defendants conspired to export the technology related to the production of carbon without permission, and the time and termination period of the crime were somewhat ambiguous from October 2010 to September 11, 2013, and the method of committing the crime was also specified as an amendment of the relevant drawings and process, and did not entirely state the specific contents of the revised work. As such, this part of the facts charged was specified.

subsection (b) of this section.

In other words, even in the case of a single comprehensive crime, the place, time, method, etc. of a representative criminal act should be stated. The facts charged in this case are not clearly stated in the representative criminal act.

B) The Defendants did not constitute technology, etc. subject to export license under Article 19(1) and (2) of the former Foreign Trade Act (amended by Act No. 11958, Jul. 30, 2013; hereinafter the same) but had already been able to produce bombs and pipes using the technology and drawings, etc. transferred at the time of the K project before entering into a contract with F.

Defendants merely read the existing drawings and process level at the request of Y, or provide consultation related to the general industrial production technology. The amendment of the drawings of Potan (U/V) is merely an obvious error or clerical error, etc., as in the drawings of the new officer (E) that the lower court acquitted the Defendants. The amendment of the drawings of Potan (U/V) does not provide new technology.

Therefore, the technology provided by the Defendant is not a technology necessary for the production of shot, but a technology necessary for the production of shot, and is also a technology disclosed to the general public, and thus is not subject to export permission.

C) Article 19 of the former Foreign Trade Act, which is not a “export of technology” as prescribed by the former Foreign Trade Act, is abroad.