A. It is unfair that Defendant A’s imprisonment (a 3 years of imprisonment and forfeiture of evidence 1 to 5) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant B’s punishment (a forfeiture of imprisonment for six months and evidence No. 12) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following: Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A did not have any benefit from the actual acquisition of the instant crime; Defendant A did not have been punished as the same type of crime; however, Defendant A did not have been punished as the same type of crime; Defendant A’s crime was an organized crime of which the instant crime was mobilized by highly intelligent methods; Defendant 3 of the instant victims reached a total of KRW 22 million; Defendant A participated in the instant crime in accordance with the proposal of “E” in one name in China; Defendant A participated in the instant crime; Defendant A did not make efforts to recover damage; Defendant A did not reach an agreement with the victims; Defendant A did not have to reach an agreement with the victims; and Defendant A had a two-time suspended sentence of execution, it cannot be said that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding Defendant B’s grounds for appeal, the number of crimes committed by Defendant B was limited to once and the number of crimes committed by Defendant B was suspended from participating in the instant crime. Although Defendant B did not have a substantial benefit from the instant crime, the social harm of the instant crime itself exists, Defendant B did not make efforts to recover damage and did not reach an agreement with the victim H, Defendant B was released on February 28, 201, on May 30, 201, by having been sentenced to imprisonment for a special robbery of three years and six months at the Daegu District Court, and was released on February 28, 2014 during the execution of the sentence.

9. 4. In light of the fact that the crime of this case is a repeated offense upon the termination of the parole period, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.