Of the judgment of the court below in the first and second instances, all parts against Defendant A and Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment;

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of each court below's sentence (the sentence of the court below = 10 years of suspended sentence, probation, community service order 120 hours in October, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for two years, probation, community service order 120 hours in June, Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, Defendant C: suspended sentence for two years, probation, community service order 120 hours in June, and DefendantO and Defendant P are too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the Defendants were rendered ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants in relation to the ex officio judgment against the Defendants A and C, and the Defendants filed an appeal against them, and the court of second instance decided to jointly examine the two appeals. Since the crimes of the court of first and second instance against the Defendants are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court of first and second instance against the Defendants cannot be maintained.

3. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant O and Defendant P

A. According to the records, the second instance court determined punishment in consideration of various sentencing reasons, such as the fact that the Defendants had been punished several times, the DefendantO committed the instant crime during the repeated crime period, the fact that the Defendants committed the instant crime in the case of DefendantO, the fact that the mistakes are divided and reflected, the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendants, the fact that the victims do not want the punishment of the Defendants, the fact that there are little actual profits from the crime, and the age of the Defendants.

B. Although there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial court, and considering the various reasons for sentencing revealed in the oral proceedings, the sentencing against the Defendants of the second instance court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the sentencing of the Defendants of the second instance court is too excessive.

(c).