Of them, the part on Defendant K is reversed.

Defendant

K shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months.

Defendant

A, B, E, H.

A. The sentence, except Defendant N, W, and M, pronounced by the lower court (in the event of Defendant A, 4 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 40 hours of community service, 5 million won of fine, 5 million won of imprisonment, 8 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, 3 months of imprisonment, 3 months of imprisonment for fraud, 2018 higher group8273 and 3 months of imprisonment for fraud, 6 million won of fine: Defendant J: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 3 months of imprisonment for Defendant K, 4 months of probation, 1 year of probation, 1 year of probation) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment (as against the remaining Defendants except Defendant B: imprisonment of April, 2 year of probation, 40 hours of community service, 40 hours of probation, Defendant N: imprisonment of April, 2 year of probation, 2 year of probation, 2 year of probation, Defendant E: imprisonment of June, 2 year of probation, 2 year of probation, Defendant E: imprisonment of August, 2 year of probation, 2 year of probation, Defendant H: 2 month of imprisonment of February, 2018, 2018, 9544 for fraud, 6 million won of fine, 6 million won of probation, Defendant J: imprisonment of June, 2 year of probation, Defendant K: imprisonment of August, 4 months of probation, 1 year of probation, and 4 million won of fine of Defendant M) which is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of each of the Defendants, including the details and frequency of the crime, the degree of participation, the amount of damage and the degree of recovery from damage, and the existence of the same kind of power, etc. The circumstances for which the said Defendants and the public prosecutor asserted on the grounds of unfair sentencing are already reflected in most of the grounds for sentencing of the lower court, and Defendant K.