All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) merely ordered AB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) to withdraw the original distribution unit, and did not instruct AB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) to fix the distribution unit as the lerasty pumps.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A, B: each fine of 2.5 million won, Defendant C, and D: each fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. At least two defendants A's assertion of mistake of facts does not require any legal punishment, but only two or more persons' conspiracys to jointly process a certain crime and realize such crime. Thus, even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of the intent to realize the crime, the conspiracy is established in a successive or secret manner between several persons, and even if there was no such conspiracy, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the conspiracy is held liable as a co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do30 Decided March 27, 1998, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A is not only a representative director of G but also a person directly conflicting with the victim K, a competitor, but also a person who is in the position to direct or allow the Defendant to commit the instant crime. ② Defendant C is the person in charge of G distribution in the J area at port and port around May 2013, 201 that “I will not get transferred from the person in charge of G distribution in the J area at port to the subsequent distribution cost,” and Defendant C is the same.