2. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances; (b) there is a need to strictly punish the act of joining a criminal organization; (c) the Defendant inflicted bodily injury upon the victim of the latter organization by taking advantage of dangerous things; (d) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the suspension of execution; and (e) the same kind of violence and fraud; and (b) the circumstances favorable; (b) the Defendant recognized and reflects his criminal act; (c) the Defendant was not in the leading position in the said collective act; (d) the victim of special injury does not want to be punished for the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s crime of this case is in the relation of concurrent crimes between the crime of the lower court’s decision that became final and the crime of this case after Article 37 of the Criminal Act; and (e) the equity

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above various circumstances.

The circumstances for which the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing was unfair have already been considered by the court below in the process of determining the above punishment, and there is no other special change in circumstances that make it possible for the court below to change the sentencing.

The prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the original judgment’s 27th 10th c.

Defendant

A “A” is clearly erroneous in office, so it is in accordance with Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

Defendant

C is corrected as “C”.