A. (i) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (4 months of imprisonment and 10 months of imprisonment) against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below of the first instance is too unhued and unfair.

B. (i) The sentence (three million won of fine) sentenced by the court below of the second instance against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (eight months of imprisonment) and the above sentence sentenced by the second instance court are deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant C and the Prosecutor as to the conviction part against Defendant C among the judgment of the first instance regarding Defendant C.

The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a timely and consistent manner, and committed the instant crime in depth.

In addition, the crime of joint conflict in this case was led by Co-defendant A, who is a co-defendant in the court below, and it seems that the above A has completed compensation for damage to P.

Furthermore, the fact that the Defendant currently is relatively 21 years old, and some of the Defendant’s committing the instant fraud ought to be considered in relation to the relationship between the crime of fraud, which became final and conclusive on October 25, 2014 and the concurrent crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the principle of equity with the case where a judgment is rendered, etc., should be considered in favor of the Defendant in the course of the determination of

Meanwhile, the crime of this case committed by the Defendant in collusion with the Co-Defendant B and the above A by intentionally causing a traffic accident, thereby taking money in the name of the agreement from the victim P, and by taking money equivalent to 15 million won in total over 65 times for about 7 months under the so-called so-called "Jinna" fraud law, and the punishment of the illegality of the act is not weak.

In addition, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant joint conflict in accordance with the crime plan prepared in advance, and the Defendant continues to commit some of the crimes on December 30, 2014.