Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for two years;

A. The Defendants’ punishment (i.e., one year and six months of imprisonment; (ii) Defendant A appealed only to the lower judgment; (ii) two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation (No. 1); (iii) two years of imprisonment (the lower judgment); and (iv) Defendant C: one year and six months of imprisonment; (iv) one year and six months of confiscation (the first instance judgment); and (v) one year and six months of imprisonment (the second instance judgment); and (v) one year and six months of imprisonment (the second instance judgment).

B. The first instance court’s sentence (i.e., imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment of two years and six months, confiscation, and Defendant C: imprisonment of two years and six months, confiscation, and confiscation) declared by the first instance court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to the records of the latter part of Article 37 (Defendant A) of the Criminal Act, Defendant A was sentenced on June 3, 2016 to imprisonment of one year and six months with prison labor for computer use fraud at the Jung-gu District Court on June 11, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 11, 2016. Therefore, each of the crimes of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was found guilty of the above Defendant, and the crimes of which judgment was final and conclusive on the above Defendant, are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the punishment for each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be determined at the same time in consideration of equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time in accordance with

B. The judgment of the court below against the Defendants 1 and 2 was pronounced in the consolidated proceedings (defendant B and C). Each appeal against the judgment of the court below against the Defendants 1 and 2 was filed by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance

However, since each of the above defendants' convictions against the above defendants is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, the part of each judgment of the court below against the above defendants is all relevant.