Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, fine of 300,000 won, and Defendant B.

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of 1 year and 300,000 won with prison labor of 1 year and 4 months in the first instance court, imprisonment of 2 won in the second instance, and imprisonment of 3 months in the first instance court, Defendant B: six months in the first instance court) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the part on the forfeiture of the first instance judgment against Defendant B by misunderstanding the legal principles of prosecutor 1, the lower court sentenced to forfeiture of one unit of telephone phone (IPhone, A1530, T, No. 12), one unit of public machinery (IPhone A1530, No. 14), one unit of LGU heart chip (Evidence No. 16), and one unit of chip (Evidence No. 16) under the name of Defendant B, but the said articles do not constitute the subject of forfeiture under each subparagraph of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on forfeiture.

2) The first instance court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

A. In the consolidation of Defendant A’s appeal cases, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. The crime of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the crime of the judgment of the court of second instance in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished with a single sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained as they are.

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, I applied for a compensation order against the Defendants during the first instance trial of the first instance court, and the first instance court ordered Defendant B to pay KRW 250,000 to the applicant I for the compensation order in collaboration with the Defendant A.

However, I is only the victim of the crime No. 1 in the first instance judgment of 2017, the second instance judgment of 1733, the crime No. 2 in the second instance judgment of 1733, and it is recognized that Defendant B's liability for damages against Defendant B is recognized.