All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the registration of change of representative director and inside director in the original adjudication, the part on the registration of change of representative director and inside director in the crime 1.A. (1), B. (1), and 2.A. (1) was intended to open the company name account by changing at least the representative director or inside director, and as long as the company name account has been opened up until the company name account, it cannot be deemed that there is no change of representative director or inside director, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.

B. In the event that the company was registered for incorporation by making a false report on the trade name, purpose, location of the principal office, representative director, in-house director, and auditor as if the company was actually established and operated without the intention to actually establish and operate the company, it shall be deemed that the public official had the above part enter false matters against the truth.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the charges.

C. The Defendants asserts that each of the punishments imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, two years of probation, two years of social service, 400 hours of imprisonment, ten months of suspended execution, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 160 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendants argued to the same effect as the lower court.

The lower court did not accept the above assertion and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The reasoning of the court below and the following facts revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely C, I Co., Ltd., I Co., Ltd., I, andO.