Of the Defendants, the part of the Defendant case against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment.

A. Although Defendant C conspired with Defendant C to leave the Republic of Korea in collusion with the Republic of Korea, or sent the flight capital to Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the part of the facts charged as to Defendant C, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor and the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing by the lower court declared each of six years of imprisonment and confiscation to Defendant A, three years of imprisonment to Defendant B, and two years and six months of imprisonment to Defendant C. The prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair, and on the contrary, all the Defendants asserts that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the facts acknowledged in Article 3-A(A) of the Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, etc., Defendant C knew that “When Defendant A departs from the Republic of Korea to the Philippines in accordance with the escape plan established from the planning stage of the instant crime, Defendant C was aware of the fact that Defendant A was receiving criminal proceeds in the custody of the Defendant B, and in fact, Defendant C played a critical and key role in the escape of the Defendant A from abroad.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that deemed Defendant C as a co-principal of the act of escapeing the criminal defendant A from abroad is justifiable.

3. We will examine both the prosecutor and the Defendants’ respective arguments on unfair sentencing and the Defendants’ assertion on unfair sentencing in a lump sum.

Facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.

① Defendant C, after having had the mind to commit the fraud, who had the iced sale of merchandise coupons, had the Defendant C “in the course of investigation.”