Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

A. Defendant B (Defendant B) was not involved in each of the crimes listed in [Attachment B] List 3(B) through 5, Nos. 27 through 35, and Nos. 3(B) in the second instance judgment, except for each of the crimes listed in [Attachment B] List 3(B] in the judgment of the second instance.

2) The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: the imprisonment of one year and four months; the second instance court; the imprisonment of two months; the imprisonment of one year and ten months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C, D, Z, AAB, AC, and AD (Defendant C: imprisonment of one and half years with prison labor of the first instance court; imprisonment of one year and six months in the second instance; imprisonment with prison labor of the first instance court; imprisonment of eight months in the first instance; imprisonment with prison labor of the second instance court; imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months in the second instance; imprisonment with prison labor of the second instance court; imprisonment with prison labor of one year and eight months in the second instance; Defendant AB; imprisonment with prison labor of eight months in the second instance; imprisonment with prison labor of eight months in the second instance; and Defendant AD; imprisonment with prison labor of the second instance court of eight months in the second instance; and imprisonment with prison labor of six months in the second instance).

2. Determination:

A. From the judgment of the court below as to the part concerning Defendant B and B, the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B’s reasons for appeal was ex officio prior to the judgment on Defendant B’s grounds for appeal, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for fraud on April 3, 2008 and its judgment was finalized on August 2, 2008. Meanwhile, on February 10, 2011, each of the fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2011 after being sentenced to imprisonment with labor for up to eight months in this court, was sentenced to imprisonment for up to 206 and 207, and the two concurrent crimes were committed after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B’s amendment of indictment as to Defendant B and Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act after the second two concurrent crimes were deleted from the judgment below, but the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B’s subsequent application for permission or amendment of indictment.