Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. Defendants 1) there are overlapping facts among the facts charged against Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing), and the case in which the Defendant did not participate is included in the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The part of the instant facts charged, which included only an agreement among Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing) but did not actually receive money, overlapping part, and personal loans, should be reflected.

Where the client has agreed to recover the individual but the client has already cancelled the agreement, the case must be excluded from the list of crimes among the facts charged.

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

With respect to collection, 14 cases which are not actually received shall be excluded from the additional collection charge.

3) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of Defendant C (unfair sentencing) to the Defendant (an imprisonment of three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

4) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (one year of imprisonment) on Defendant D (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

5) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (a year and six months of imprisonment) of Defendant E (a year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable) Defendant F (a misunderstanding the fact of collection, and misunderstanding the sentencing)’s pay and allowance at the time when the Defendant worked in BL, the amount of KRW 61,00,000 as remuneration and allowance, KRW 620,000 as remuneration when the Defendant worked in EI’s office, and KRW 3.5 million when the Defendant worked in AL.

The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

7) Defendant G (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the law, and improper sentencing) was only a regular employee who received benefits from R from October 2015, and served as a full-time employee, and accordingly, did not commit a crime of violation of the law by defense.

The indictment of this case, separate from the offense of violation of the Act on the Protection of Defense, is unlawful as an abuse of the public prosecution power.

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court (two years and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The additional collection charge.