2. Determination

A. Defendant A was not the period of participation in each of the crimes of this case, and the fact that Defendant A recognized his mistake and reflected against Defendant A is favorable to Defendant A.

On the other hand, Defendant A had a record of being punished several times as a crime of fraud, and each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant A during the repeated crime period, and each of the crimes of this case committed by Defendant A was committed by multiple persons and closely planned in advance, constitutes systematic fraud is an unfavorable condition to Defendant A.

In addition, when taking into account the various circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable as it is too heavy.

In addition, in light of the fact that collection under Articles 10(1) and 8(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds is a voluntary collection, and that it is necessary to consider the equity between the other co-defendants of the original court that had already become final and conclusive without the sentence of additional collection, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s failure to sentence additional collection on behalf of the Defendant A is illegal or unjust.

Therefore, the defendant A and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing against the defendant A is not accepted in all.

B. It is necessary to consider equity with the case where Defendant B rendered a judgment at the same time with the case where Defendant B rendered a judgment of fraud for which two and a half years and six months have become final and conclusive by imprisonment with labor for the first head of the crime of the lower judgment, which is a concurrent crime of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.