The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that this judgment.

I. Summary of the grounds for appeal

1. Defendant A, B, D, and E

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Fraud related to the supply of large class training equipment (Defendant A, B, D, and E) (Defendant A, D), the absence of deceptive act (1) the lawfulness and adequacy of calculation of domesticization rate, and at the time when L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) submitted a proposal and a plan for the implementation of domesticization to the Ministry of National Defense (hereinafter “O”) to the Ministry of National Defense through O (hereinafter “O”), it is prior to the implementation of the Regulations on the Management of Human Resources for Military Supplies (No. 651, Dec. 12, 2001). There was no basis for calculating the domesticization rate under the above provisions, and there was no clear provision in the Regulations on the Management of National Defense (Ministry of National Defense No. 651, Dec. 31, 199) applied to the contract at the time.

Nevertheless, L presented the domesticization rate calculated by setting the purchase price of the parts directly imported from abroad as the total foreign currency expenditure in accordance with the guidelines for preparing a plan for the localization of defense materials designated and the products self-development products in force at the time of implementation of L. However, the above domesticization rate is reasonable in accordance with the regulations at the time.

(B) Since Co., Ltd. V (hereinafter “V”) and division business chain R, T, and U are separate companies from L, it cannot be calculated on the premise that the above companies are the same companies as L.

In addition, the time of the establishment of a branch company is around April 5, 2003, and there is no probability that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the localization by preparing a false tax invoice through a branch company after two years from the time of the preparation of the implementation plan for the localization of Korea on April 2001.

(C) Therefore, the domesticization rate calculated and presented in L is justified, and there is no fact that Defendant A et al. have concealed by manipulating the localization rate.

(2) The lawfulness of cost calculation, adequacy (A) from V in a divided company, and from V, the half-finished products manufactured by V by importing parts are purchased, and processed.