Of them, the part on Defendant G and H is reversed.

Defendant

G and H shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(b).

A. The Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing (as to Defendant C, E, and F), the lower court’s sentencing (as to Defendant C: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, D, G, and H (one year of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, six months of imprisonment, Defendant G, and H: one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant C’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the crime of this case was committed on April 5, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court sentenced one year or more to the said Defendant on April 19, 2013, the crime of this case was committed in a systematic, planned, and intelligent manner, and thus the quality of the crime is not good. The crime of this case was committed with a significant structure of massing a number of victims, and its social harm is very significant; the act of the said Defendant’s withdrawal scheme is indispensable to achieve the purpose of the crime of this case, and its degree of participation is not weak; and the damage does not have been recovered. However, the above Defendant’s act of this case is against the crime of this case; the crime of this case is committed on April 19, 2013 with the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it does not appear that the above Defendant’s previous crime of this case’s age and character and its circumstances are relatively unreasonable, with the exception of the aforementioned criminal records and the aforementioned damage to the Defendant’s occupation.