Of them, Paragraph 1 of this Article applies to Defendant A, among others: 2018 Highise53, 2018 Highise443, 2018 Highise537, 2018 Highise743, 2019 Highise65.

However, among the judgment below, the Defendants and the public prosecutor appealed only against the Defendants, and the dismissal of the prosecution against Defendant A was not dismissed by both Defendant A and the public prosecutor, so the aforementioned dismissal part was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the Defendants.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (1) Defendant A and his defense counsel asserted, in the statement of grounds of appeal, the “2018 high-priced 53, 2018 high-priced 443, 2018 high-priced 537, 2018 high-priced 743, 2019 high-priced 65, 2019 high-priced 666, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), occupational breach of trust, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing” as the grounds of appeal. On September 24, 2019 and November 5, 2019, the defense counsel’s opinion withdraws all the remaining arguments except the allegation of unfair sentencing among the grounds of appeal.

The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment for each of the crimes described in the holding in paragraphs (1), (2), (2), and (3) of 2018, 2018, 443, 2018, 537, 2018, 743, 2019, 2019, 666) is too unreasonable.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Paragraph 1 and 2-2 of the lower court’s 2018 Gohap53, 2018 Gohap443, 2018 Gohap537, 2018 Gohap743, 2018 Gohap743, and 2019 Gohap65 for Defendant A.

Imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in the judgment below, 2019Gohap66.