Defendant

A is each crime of fraud, injury to the first instance judgment in the judgment of the first instance court in the first and second instance judgment.

A. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: the first judgment of the lower court is sentenced to three months of imprisonment and six months of imprisonment; the second judgment is sentenced to imprisonment; the first judgment of the lower court is sentenced to imprisonment; the second judgment of the Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for two months and fines of 300,000; the second judgment of the lower court is sentenced to imprisonment for one month; the first judgment of the Defendant E: imprisonment with prison labor for two months; the second judgment of the lower court is sentenced to imprisonment for one year of suspended execution; the second judgment of the probation; the second judgment of the lower court is sentenced to imprisonment for one year; the second sentence of the suspended execution; four months; the suspension of execution for one year; the community service order of 80 hours; the Defendant H: April; the Defendant AI: imprisonment with prison labor for four months; and the

B. Defendant G1) misunderstanding of legal principles (Omission of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act) is related to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (special quasi-rape) and the crime of violation of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, which became final and conclusive on July 23, 2018, and thus, a sentence should be sentenced in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment becomes final and conclusive at the same time. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by omitting the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act’s treatment of concurrent crimes. 2) The lower court’s sentence against

C. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the defendant A) by the prosecutor (the non-guilty part on the grounds of special injury) and the prosecutor's office, such as the statement in the investigation agency of the victim W, the fact that the defendant A was suffering from the main illness, which is a dangerous object toward the victim W face, and inflicted an injury on the victim. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant A of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The above sentence sentenced to the judgment of the court of unfair sentencing by the court of first instance on the charges of the defendant A is too una

2. Ex officio determination

A. As to the consolidation of the appeal case (as to the defendant A, D, and E), the first judgment and the second judgment were sentenced to the defendant A, D, and E, the defendants filed an appeal respectively. The prosecutor filed an appeal against the defendant A. The first judgment against the defendant.