Defendant

B 3 years of imprisonment.

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant B, who was sentenced to the judgment of the court below (the maximum of four years of imprisonment, the short of three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below is unfair that the remaining defendants are sentenced to each punishment (five years of imprisonment of the first instance court, confiscation, three years of imprisonment of the second instance court, three years of the second instance court's imprisonment of the first instance court, three years and six months of the short term, three years and six years of the short term, the second instance court's imprisonment of the second instance court, two years of the short term, two years and six months of the short term, two years of the confiscation, the second instance court's imprisonment of the first instance court, one year and six months of the short term, two years of the confiscation, the second instance court's confiscation, two years of the second instance court's imprisonment of the first instance court, three years of the confiscation, the second instance court's imprisonment of the second instance court, one year and six months, the second instance court's imprisonment of the second instance court's imprisonment of the first instance court, and the defendant Eul's imprisonment of the first instance court's second half and half years and six years and six months of the second instance court's imprisonment of the first instance).

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for appeal by the Defendants prior to the determination of ex officio.

Defendant

B as AVMss, Defendant E, and Defendant F are AVNs’s birth, and the above Defendants were sentenced to an irregular sentence because they constitute “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the first judgment of the lower court was rendered, but it is apparent that they did not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 in the first instance trial. As such, the part concerning the Defendant’s case among the judgment of the first instance that sentenced the Defendants to an irregular sentence cannot be maintained any longer.

On the other hand, as Defendant C, E, F, G, K, and L filed an appeal against both the original judgment and the original judgment of the second instance, the appeal case was reviewed in the first instance court concurrently. However, as long as each of the facts alleged in the judgment of the lower court is in a concurrent relationship with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the lower court should be rendered concurrently and a single sentence should be imposed. In this regard, the part concerning the Defendant case and the second judgment of the lower court of the first instance cannot be maintained further.

3. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the defendant's case and the judgment of the court below of the second instance are reversed ex officio.