The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

(2).

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., misappropriation) of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (e.g., 1 year and six months of imprisonment, 2 years of imprisonment, and 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering the various circumstances of the instant case.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the Defendant A’s trial, it is recognized that the additional amount of damage was paid to some victims, and agreed that the damage was recovered by approximately 1/3 of the standard amount of damage up to now.

However, according to the statement, etc. of the above defendant C, the degree of the defendant's participation in each of the crimes of this case (the selection of fraud items, photographs, etc., contact with victims, and high profit sharing ratio) cannot be deemed to be minor.

The Defendant came to commit a second offense after having completed imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of crime.

The fact that the instant crime was committed repeatedly for a considerable period of time against many unspecified victims should also be considered.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and pleadings, the sentence of the lower court is adequate.

B. It is recognized that Defendant B was extremely living for self-reliance even in the poor family environment.

However, around 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to the same kind of crime, and was sentenced to criminal punishment in two months after the completion of imprisonment with prison labor.

Furthermore, the Defendant left his service as a social work personnel and came to commit each of the frauds in this case.

In addition, it should be considered that the crime of fraud in this case was committed repeatedly for a considerable period against many unspecified victims.

The person himself/herself is also the person who proposed the crime of fraud of this case, and did not recover from damage.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.