A and the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and the calculation of the additional collection charge (additional collection KRW 65 million) by the lower court is erroneous or erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of one year, two years of probation observation, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (as against the Defendants: 2 years of the suspended sentence of one year; 2 years of the probation, observation of protection, community service work, 160 hours; 160 hours of the community service work; and 160 hours of the community service work; 2 months of the imprisonment with prison labor; Defendant C: one year; one year of the imprisonment with prison labor; two years of the suspended sentence of eight months; one year of the observation of protection; one year of the observation of the protection; one year of the observation of the protection; two years of the suspended sentence of eight months; one year of the community service work; one year of the observation of the protection; two years of the suspended sentence of one year; one year of the probation of one year; and one hundred and sixty hours of the community service work).

2. According to the evidence examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, at the prosecution on June 13, 2017, gained profit from KRW 20 million at the time of committing the crime committed on June 18, 2017, KRW 200 to KRW 25 million at the time of committing the crime committed on June 18, 2017, and KRW 250 to KRW 30 million at the time of committing the crime committed on June 25, 2017.

It is recognized that the fact was done on the investigation records (2,090 to 2,092).

If the minimum amount favorable to the defendant among the statements made by the above defendant is added, the profits acquired by the defendant for each of the crimes of this case may be viewed as KRW 65 million.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.

3. The judgment of Defendant A and the Prosecutor on the unjust assertion of sentencing against the Defendants committed the instant crime during the period of the suspension of sentence of imprisonment due to this type of crime; the period of the suspension of sentence of imprisonment due to the same type of crime; Defendant C completed the execution of imprisonment due to the same type of crime; and Defendant C committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

Defendant

D, G, and H have a record of being punished several times for the same crime.

However, the defendants are the defendants.