The part against Defendant A, excluding the dismissed part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. The first instance court rejected AC’s application for compensation, which is an application for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, an applicant for compensation failed to file an appeal against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part dismissing the said application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first instance judgment: 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and the second instance judgment: 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B) that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal against each judgment of the court below for ex officio determination, Defendant A filed an appeal against each judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the crime against Defendant A except the dismissed part of the application for compensation among the judgment of the court of first instance and the crime against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of second instance is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against Defendant A except the dismissed part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the part against

4. The judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B on the grounds of appeal by Defendant B is the confession of each of the crimes of this case and is against one’s own act. Each of the crimes of this case appears to have been led by Defendant A, who was born by Defendant B, at the continuous demand of Defendant A, who was faced with the Internet gambling, and the benefits derived from the damage amount seems to be very minor, and the social relationship seems to be relatively clear since Defendant B’s family and branch members appeal against the Defendants.