A. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the lower court’s misapprehension of the legal principle, the prosecutor stated his opinion that the Defendant shall collect 5.99 million won from the prosecutor. However, the lower court omitted KRW 400,000 and collected only KRW 5.190,000,000, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant A, who is unfair in sentencing, is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court as to the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, a total of KRW 5,190,000 shall be collected from Defendant A.

Based on the investigation report (the calculation report of additional collection charges, the net 43), the prosecutor asserts that the amount to be collected in the case No. 2017 Highest 5929,00 won is KRW 5,190,000. However, among the criminal facts stated as the basis for the calculation of additional collection charges, the above report is excluded from the calculation of additional collection charges on August 19, 2017, ② “AJ” as of August 8, 2017, ③ “AJ” as of August 12, 2017, ③ “AJ” as of August 12, 2017,” and “AF as of August 12, 2017,” so there was no prosecution, so that the sum of the amounts to be collected shall be excluded from the calculation of additional collection charges.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that collected a total of KRW 5,190,000 from the initial collection charge of KRW 5,192,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 as in the 2017 Highest 5,000,000,000,000,000.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendants, who made a judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, had been involved in the investigation, and Defendant C had an attitude of reflection, such as the full payment of the surcharge imposed by the lower court.

However, Defendant B and C receive a considerable amount of philopon from the Thailand to postal items, through Defendant A.