The parts against the Defendants are reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.

(b).

A. The 10-month imprisonment sentenced by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) In so determining, the lower court ordered the confiscation of all of the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, 12 through 14, and 16 (each paper paper, total amount of KRW 37,748,00,000, which was seized). Of the above money, KRW 22,000,000, the lower court ordered the confiscation of all the confiscated cash, which was irrelevant to the instant crime, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, and 40 hours of community service, which was sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion is recognized as a disadvantageous condition, such as Defendant A’s two times of fine for the same crime, and one suspended sentence, and in particular, Defendant A committed the instant crime on July 25, 2014, even after having been issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime, and then committed the instant crime on July 25, 2014, but only two months thereafter. Defendant A is aged 83 years of age and health is not good, and all of the instant crimes are recognized and are not good, and is against depth. Defendant A’s children are able not to repeat again by supporting Defendant A in good faith. Defendant A is detained for more than four months; Defendant A’s life under detention for more than four months; Defendant A’s personality and behavior, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is somewhat unreasonable.

B. As long as the confiscation of Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a kind of punishment, the grounds for confiscation should be recognized based on evidence.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11883, Dec. 12, 2013). According to the record of the instant case, the police officer arrested the Defendants in the act of committing a crime on October 17, 2014, and searched the place of business at the time of the arrest site.