1. Of the judgment of the court below, the part on the defendant B and the guilty part of the defendant C are reversed.

Defendant

B. a fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and E (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (an administrative fine of KRW 5 million) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) In order to punish Defendant B as a crime of absence at the National Assembly under Article 12(1) of the Act on Testimony, etc. at the former National Assembly (wholly amended by Act No. 14757, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “instant Act”), a written request for attendance shall be served seven days prior to the date of the request for attendance. There is no evidence that Defendant B was served a written request for attendance by December 15, 2016, seven days prior to the date of the request for attendance.

B) Even if the request for attendance was served on December 15, 2016, the request for attendance was served.

Even if a public official belonging to the National Assembly, who is not a legitimate service agency, served the service on a public official belonging to the National Assembly, violates the requirements for supplementary service at work site, and ③ fails to comply with the provisions for service of civil litigation law, such as not serving the original copy of the request for appearance.

C) Defendant B was unable to communicate because of lack of hearing capacity at the time, and it was difficult for Defendant B to attend a hearing for long time due to physical and mental weakness due to pulmonary cancer surgery and old age, etc., and there was a justifiable reason for absence.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 10 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) According to Article 15(4) of the misunderstanding of the legal principles, the prosecutor must conclude the investigation within two months from the date of accusation at the National Assembly, and the above period constitutes the statute of limitations, and thus, the public prosecution of this case conducted at the time six months have elapsed from the date of accusation in violation of this provision is an incidental law.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) The accusation filed by the Special Investigation Committee (hereinafter “Special Investigation Committee”) on January 10, 2017 to the special prosecutor on January 10, 2017 is against an institution without authority to investigate the instant case.