1. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. On the following grounds, the lower court determined that the part of the acquittal was acquitted for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes") (hereinafter "the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes").

① The lower court’s re-crimes 1 through 3 of the list of crimes in the lower judgment did not constitute a single violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (i.e., distribution) by comprehensively combining the crimes, and each crime constitutes a violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (i.e., distribution) by combining each type of crime, and each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.

② The part of the lower judgment’s violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (a part of distribution) due to the crime committed once again in the table 1 of the crime committed by the lower judgment is evident that seven years have elapsed since April 9, 2007 when the criminal act was committed, the prosecution was instituted on January 17, 2017, and the statute of limitations expired.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes.

B. The non-guilty portion of the reasoning is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B to commit a crime again in collusion with Defendant B at least 2, 7, and 13, a year of crime inundation of the lower judgment.

In light of the above, the part was acquitted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders.

2. Defendant A’s grounds of appeal asserted as follows.

① The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding sentencing factors by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The punishment of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) shall be too unreasonable in light of various circumstances.

(3) The court below's decision against Defendant A.