The second judgment and the second judgment.

A. Defendants 1) Defendant HO: The punishment [two years of imprisonment, confiscation No. 17 of seized evidence (No. 2, No. 17 of the Military Prosecutors' Office 2015, No. 2570)] and the punishment [three years of imprisonment] of the fourth original judgment is too unreasonable. 2] Defendant HT: the punishment [Confiscation of two years of imprisonment, seized evidence No. 12 through 17 (No. 2015, No. 2570 of the Military Prosecutors' Office 2015)] and the punishment [four years of imprisonment] of the fourth original judgment is too unreasonable.

3) Defendant P: The Defendant did not engage in deception when receiving money from the victim JH in the name of the deposit for lease, and did not have any intent to commit fraud. Therefore, the judgment of the second court that deemed that the Defendant committed fraud against the said victim is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Furthermore, the punishment of imprisonment [five years of imprisonment, forfeiture of subparagraphs 3 through 5 (No. 2683) of seized evidence at the District Prosecutors' Office 2015 and [six months of imprisonment] of the fifth judgment [No. 4] and the imprisonment [No. 8 through 17 (No. 2015No. 2743)] of the third judgment of the lower court and the confiscation of the seized evidence [No. 5 years of imprisonment] and the imprisonment [No. 4 years of the fifth judgment of the lower court of the fifth judgment] are too unreasonable.

5) Defendant B: The punishment of the judgment of the third court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 6) Defendant L: the punishment of the judgment of the fifth court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

7) DefendantO: The punishment of the first instance judgment of the fifth (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 8) Defendant N: The punishment of the fifth (two years of imprisonment and six months) of the fifth lower judgment is too unreasonable.

9) Defendant HW: The punishment of the lower court of the fifth instance (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. The punishment of the Defendant HT of the lower court of the second instance of the public prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) and the punishment of the Defendant P of the second instance of the lower court (five years of imprisonment is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. On April 24, 2015, the prosecutor of the first amendment of indictment against Defendant HO came to the trial of the first instance court, and on April 24, 2015.