Of the judgment of the court of first instance, each of the crimes listed in Articles 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, and 23 of the judgment with respect to Defendant E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts did not take part in Defendant A’s solicitation of lessors on the following grounds: (i) Defendant A, Q and H’s conspiracy; and (ii) Defendant A’s own participation as a lessor and proposed that AH act as a false lessor; and (iii) Defendant A did not take part in the solicitation of lessors.

Nevertheless, the first instance court convicted the Defendant A of all the charges, including this part, by misunderstanding the facts of the first instance trial.

2. The sentence that the court below sentenced the above defendant (two years and six months) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the defendant A was linked to the defendant E with the introduction of the false landlord via AH, but did not participate in the specific crime, and that he was endeavoring to recover from damage.

B. In light of the fact that the above defendant C divided his mistake and paid 110,000 won per month in accordance with the installment repayment agreement and endeavored to recover damage, such as repaying the principal part, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below (10 months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

E In light of the fact that the above defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, the economic difficulties of family members are increased if his life is prolonged, and most of the crimes of this case are ex post facto concurrent crimes, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below on the above defendant (the first instance court: imprisonment of four years and eight months and four months, and second instance: imprisonment of eight months) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

P In light of the fact that the above defendant committed the crime of this case due to erroneous determination, the above defendant made efforts to recover damage by depositing KRW 20 million for the repayment of damage, and the support of the above defendant was neglected to young children, etc., the punishment (4 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) Defendant E’s grounds for appeal on the assertion of Defendant E are examined ex officio.