A. The sentence of the lower judgment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) on Defendant A (unfair punishment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) merely acted in accordance with the direction of Defendant A by mistake of facts, but did not know the overall circumstances about the land subject to an unfair sentencing judgment. (2) The sentence of the lower court on the sentence of unfair sentencing (a fine of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the part against the defendant A and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance concerning the grounds for appeal by consolidation 1) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the court of first instance and the court of second instance decided to concurrently examine the case of appeal by the court of first instance and the court of second instance. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, each of the offenses against the defendant and the offense in the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be punished as a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent offenses pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant (excluding the part of the compensation order) and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be exempted from all reversal. 2) When an appeal is filed against ex officio judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance on the compensation order, even if there is no objection to the compensation order, and the compensation order

According to the records, as to the application for compensation order filed by E, F, and G, the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant partially discharged the instant damages by transferring part of the instant damages to F and G, an applicant for compensation on July 7, 2015, and on December 15, 2014, it is recognized that the instant case’s damages were withdrawn by mutual consent between E and the applicant for compensation and the applicant for compensation on December 15, 2014. As such, each of the Defendant’s liability for compensation against the applicant for compensation is found to exist or its scope.