Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four years.

A. Defendant A (i) The grounds for appeal against the first judgment of the lower court (the factual error and unreasonable sentencing) are only involved in establishing the F Co., Ltd., and Defendant A is merely an aiding and abetting crime by not participating in the instant crime after its establishment.

Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court against A (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence (6 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the second instance court against the judgment of the court of appeal No. 2 is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the second instance of Defendant E (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the ex officio judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, the cases of the first and second original judgment were consolidated in the trial court. The crimes of each of the above cases are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be adjudicated at the same time pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part on Defendant A among the first and second original judgment cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts against the first original judgment of Defendant A are still subject to the judgment of this court, which is next to the following.

In addition, the paragraph is examined separately.

B. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below for erroneous determination of facts against Defendant A’s judgment of the first instance court and the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the first instance court is justified in finding Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in relation to the facts charged in the first instance court on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and it cannot be said that the court below erred by misconception of facts as alleged by the Defendant and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. The instant crime on Defendant E’s ground of unfair sentencing on the second judgment of the lower court was committed during the period of repeated crime, and the instant crime was already committed in the second instance trial and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.