B. Defendant A is sentenced to six months of imprisonment and Defendant E.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A and E1) conspired in advance to gambling the victim and use a special siren, etc., and led the crime of acquiring the victim’s property through a professional veterinary method, such as using the victim’s property, not only the crime was committed, but also the amount exceeding 71 million won in total. Defendant A also committed fraud with respect to the establishment of a right to collateral security against the taxi owned by the victim. The crime is very bad, Defendant A, by pursuing the victim, intending to raise money and place for gambling, provided the victim with money and place necessary for gambling. Defendant A continuously lent gambling money to the victim, led the victim to gambling, leading the crime of this case, and brought the victim to gambling, and brought the money acquired from the damaged person, and Defendant E played a leading role in the crime of this case, such as taking the role of gambling with Defendant A, and did not take any responsibility for the crime of this case, and the Defendants did not have any gambling and gambling responsibility against the other Defendants.

2) However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants were accused of the instant crime in the first instance trial; (b) the Defendants deposited KRW 30 million for the victim in the first instance trial; (c) the Defendants did not have the record of criminal punishment heavier than the same kind of punishment and suspended execution; and (d) the Defendants’ age, etc., the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable as it did not appear to have been imposed.

3) Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is with merit.

(b).