Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and one year and two months, respectively.

A. Defendant F (1) misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant did not have conspired with the Defendant, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A, B, G - The sentence of unfair sentencing (A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year in the first instance court, imprisonment with prison labor for eight months in the second instance court, imprisonment with prison labor for ten months in the second instance, imprisonment with prison labor for six months in the second instance, imprisonment with prison labor for one year in the first instance court, and imprisonment with prison labor for one year in the second instance and six months in the second instance) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, Defendant A, B, and G appealed against the above judgment of the court below, and this court decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeal cases. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, a single sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, the above judgment of the court below against the above defendants cannot be maintained any more.

B. Examining ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, Defendant F was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months at the Incheon District Court on June 25, 2014 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 28, 2014. Since the crime of the lower judgment against Defendant F is one of the concurrent crimes between the above crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the lower judgment against Defendant F was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, Defendant F's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.

3. According to the records of the judgment on the grounds of appeal (the defendant F's assertion of mistake of facts), the defendant F stated in the court below that he denied the intention of fraud at the court below, but he was aware that he had no occupation at the time of this case, and the defendant B at the court below's court, the defendant B at the court below.