The part of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of second instance concerning the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

C. 3 years of imprisonment,

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants [1] Defendant C: ① 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor; ② 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor in the second instance judgment; and 2) Defendant B: one year of imprisonment with prison labor in the second instance judgment] is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (as to the judgment of the court of first instance), the sentence of the court below against Defendant C is too unhued and thus unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by ex officio determination Defendants and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below was rendered to Defendant C, and the judgment of the court below was rendered to Defendant C, and the prosecutor filed an appeal to the judgment of the court of first instance as to the whole of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings on each of the above appeals. Since each of the offenses against Defendant C in the judgment of the court of first instance is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and should be sentenced to a single sentence under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, one of the offenses

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the nature of the crime is heavy in light of the motive of each crime of this case, the details and contents of each crime of this case, the degree of damage, etc. However, considering the following factors: Defendant B led to the confession of each crime of this case; Defendant B consented with the victims of the crime of joint confinement and attempted joint compromise; Defendant B deposited KRW 1.5 million to the victims of the crime of this case; Defendant B did not want punishment against Defendant B; Defendant B did not want to be punished; Defendant B only three times of juvenile protective disposition; Defendant B had the record of juvenile protective disposition; Defendant B’s overall sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act; and sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant B is somewhat inappropriate.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance on the defendant C as above.