A. Since misunderstanding of the legal principles and each of the instant crimes are concurrent crimes with fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive, the court below determined the punishment after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity in the case of judgment at the same time with the above fraud, etc., but did not consider

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment’s judgment regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, according to the “applicable law” column and the “reasons for sentencing” column, it is evident that the lower court, pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, determined the punishment of each of the instant crimes by taking into account the equity between each of the instant crimes, which are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the first crime head’s fraud, etc. as indicated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the above legal principles is without merit.

B. Although there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized and opposed to the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing, and the fact that equity should be taken into account when the said judgment is rendered at the same time as the above fraud, which is one of the concurrent crimes after the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the crime of this case is artificially planned, and multiple accomplices share their organizational roles, and thus the nature of the crime is very poor, damage has not been recovered at all, and there is no change in sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the appellate court, and there is no other change in sentencing conditions that may be considered in the appellate court, and it is difficult to view that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because all of the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime, etc.,

Therefore, we do not accept the above argument of the defendant's above sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.