The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and four months.

Defendant .

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment (e., imprisonment and 3 years and 6 months, and imprisonment and 1 year and 4 months) that the court below sentenced to the Defendants are too unreasonable.

2. According to the judgment of ex officio as to Defendant B and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, Defendant B was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for violating the Special Act on the Prevention of Insurance Fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on January 9, 2020 and confirmed January 17, 2020. ② On February 12, 2020, the Incheon District Court was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for a four-month period from the Busan District Court’s Vice Branch on February 12, 2020, and the said judgment became final and conclusive February 20, 2020; ③ the Seoul Western District Court was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Military Service Act on May 13, 2020 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 16, 2020.

Defendant

The judgment of the court below with respect to B is not only a violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention established on January 17, 2020 and a crime of violation of the Military Service Act established on February 20, 2020 but also a crime of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act as well as a crime of violation of the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the judgment of the court below with respect to B is concurrently judged in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined after considering the case where the judgment is made at the same time and considering

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). After the sentence of the lower judgment, there is no new circumstance to consider sentencing, and the nature of each of the crimes of this case is considerably inappropriate; Defendant A committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act; Defendant A committed each of the crimes of this case; and Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, and environment.