A. Defendant A (i) with respect to the judgment of the court of first instance (compactedly unfair): The sentence of the court of first instance (two years of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. On the judgment of the court below of the second instance (the fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing): The crime in the judgment of the second instance is not the sole offense of the defendant A but the defendant D in collusion.

The punishment of the second instance court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the judgment of the court of the third instance (unfair punishment): The punishment of the court of the third instance (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (i) Defendant A: Each sentence of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 is too unhued and unreasonable.

Shed Defendant D (Definite). According to the statements, etc. of Defendant D, even if the fact that Defendant D conspireds to commit the crime of defraudation, there is an error of misconception of facts that the second instance court acquitted Defendant D of this part of the charges.

【Defendant BP and Q (De facto Error): In light of the relationship between the Defendants and the traders, the mode of transaction, and the method and scale of delivery of money, etc., the instant transaction act by the Defendants was transferred without registration of ownership for the purpose of distributing tea instead of automobile leasing brokerage, and thus, the second instance court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the charges, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1, 2, and 3 as to the consolidation of the appellate court's judgment 1, 2, and 3 against the defendant A was rendered, and the prosecutor filed each appeal against the defendant A, 1, and 2 as to the judgment of the court below 1, 2, and 3. The prosecutor filed each appeal against the defendant A, and this court tried the above appeal jointly.

However, the remainder of the judgment of the court below excluding the above part of the first instance judgment 2017 Godan1015 and 2017 Godan33800, among the crimes against the defendant, shall be sentenced to a single punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, since the remaining part of the judgment of the court below excluding the part of the second instance judgment 2017 Godan1015 and 2017 Godan380, is concurrent crimes under Article