The judgment below

Among them, the guilty part against Defendant A and B and Defendant C.

The court below found Defendant A and B guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort) among the facts charged in this case, and found Defendant C not guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort). As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort), Defendant A and B appealed against the guilty portion among the judgment below, and the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion among the judgment below. The prosecutor appealed against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort) as to Defendant A and B among the facts charged in this case, the non-guilty portion concerning the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort)

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the remaining part except the part already determined separately as above.

The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that Defendant B and C could not change the existing transaction method after entering into an island supply contract and the fact that Defendant B and C could not change the existing transaction method with P even after they retired from the damaged company because they could not change the existing transaction method with the O. In light of the fact that Defendant B and C could not change the existing transaction method with P even after they retired from the victimized company.