2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A’s confessions the instant crime and reflects the mistake, and Defendant A’s instant crime is in a single concurrent crime relationship with the final judgment, etc. after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and at the same time, should consider equity with the case where the judgment was rendered.

However, the crime of this case is committed by Defendant A with a certain amount of money to the victim each month.

In light of all of the sentencing conditions in the instant pleadings, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual behavior, and family environment, the lower court’s punishment is too too large, and thus, the Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is not accepted, since it is recognized that the lower court’s punishment imposed on Defendant A is too excessive, and thus, it is unreasonable. The lower court’s punishment is too excessive, and thus, the Defendant A’s punishment is unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant B’s confessions of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, Defendant B deposited KRW 5 million to recover damage, and Defendant B did not have any record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime prior to the instant crime, etc. are considered favorable to Defendant B.

However, the crime of this case was committed by Defendant B by joining the fraternity even though it is impossible to pay the fraternity amount, and the injured party, instead of paying the fraternity amount of KRW 49.5 million, in light of the method of the crime and the degree of damage.