All of the appeals by the prosecutor and the defendants against the defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Common (i) misunderstanding of facts - With respect to the violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act that the lower court found guilty, E, etc. is not a branch owner of Defendant B, but only a joint representative director of the said company with Defendant A and the same business.

Therefore, the Defendants did not constitute a violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act regarding the use of name.

【Unjustifiable sentencing sentence against the above Defendants (Defendant A’s fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant B’s fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. It was true that the above defendant A (the mistake)'s part of the crime of obstructing the exercise of rights was taken a number plate, but at the time, E illegally occupied the vehicle without exercising control over the vehicle because it was dismissed from the joint representative director of the corporation Eul.

In order to prevent illegal operation of E, the above defendant had no choice but to take the number plate of the vehicle. Such an act of the defendant is dismissed and not guilty.

With respect to the whole judgment of the court below, including the part not guilty, E, etc. of the company B, it is not a joint representative director of the above company, but only a joint representative director of the above company A and the above company.

The judgment below

The conclusion of innocence itself is acceptable, but there is an error of misunderstanding of facts on the premise that E, etc. is a branch owner of B, among the reasons for the judgment of innocence.

C. (i) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles - With respect to the acquittal portion, Defendant A was not authorized to independently prepare the instant mortgage contract and the loan certificate under the name of B Co., Ltd. for the following reasons:

Therefore, the above defendant shall be deemed to have committed all the crime of forging and utteringing the private document of this case, the false entry of the original copy of the notarial deed, and the conclusion of the judgment of the court below otherwise.