2. The judgment-making organization has the characteristics of a large number of people who have committed a crime as a systematic and continuous combination, and the existence of such violence or collectiveity is a serious threat to the maintenance of the legal order and well-being of the community.

For this reason, the defendants' acts who act as a member of the criminal organization should be punished strictly regardless of whether specific and realistic damage has occurred.

In addition, in the case of Defendant B, there is a high possibility of criticism in that it committed the instant crime during the probation period.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendants were waiting and waiting in the position of a behavioral assistant staff member in accordance with the mobilization order; (b) the Defendants did not commit any further crimes, such as exercising violence; (c) recognized their criminal acts; (d) were in depth and reflected; and (e) the liquidation of organized violence life; and (e) Defendant A was arrested by themselves as Incheon metropolitan investigation; and (c) the Defendants were arrested by themselves as Incheon metropolitan investigation; and (d) the most likely support the wife and two children; and (e) other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendants’ age, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is not determined that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

3. The prosecutor's appeal of conclusion is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.