All appeals are dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: Defendant A produced the crypian technique that mainly put Ma, etc. in a well-known manner prior to the delivery of E in 2009; Defendant A did not have the ability to express M in a timely manner. However, the crypians or persons wishing to purchase the works do not call the crypian rather than the crypian works; Defendant 100,000 won was increased due to high artistic value of the works; Defendant 2 did not notify the victims of the above fact that he did not sell the crypian work at least 30,000 won by giving crypianizing his existing call work to others; Defendant 2 provided crypianizing only abstract ideas and expressed it at will; Defendant 30,000 won of his own work without notifying them of the fact that crypianizing the fact that cryp work was completed by not later than 2016.

2. 1) The first instance court found Defendant A guilty on the ground that the fact that the creative expression of the art works of this case was mainly conducted by E, etc. constitutes information with an explanatory value in the transaction of the art works of this case, and the Defendants are obligated to notify the buyer of such fact in advance in accordance with the good faith principle, and the sales without notice should be deemed to have been by omission by the buyer who was unaware of such fact.