All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, and four months of imprisonment) against Defendant A, Defendant J (U.S.) and Defendant J is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants by the prosecutor (e.g., imprisonment of one year and two months, Defendant B: fine of 5,000,000 won, Defendant C: fine of 5,000,000 won, Defendant D: fine of 5,000,000 won, Defendant E: KRW 3,000,000, Defendant F: KRW 5,000,000, Defendant G: fine of 4,000,000, Defendant H: KRW 4,000,000, Defendant H’s fine of 4,000,000,000, and Defendant J: Imprisonment of four months) is too uneased.

2. Determination

A. The fact that Defendant A recognized each of the instant crimes, and agreed with the victim B, victim D, and victim C is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, in light of the circumstances and contents of each of the crimes of this case, the crime is bad, the defendant has been committed two or more violent crimes, and the defendant has been sentenced to punishment due to violent crimes, and the defendant has committed the insult, assault, and obstruction of business among the trials of the court below, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

B. The remaining Defendants are the factors of sentencing favorable to the Defendants, including the fact that the Defendants acknowledged the instant crime.

On the other hand, Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant F, and Defendant H were punished by a fine in violation of the Employment Security Act or the Act on the Regulation on the Regulation of Amusement Businesses Affecting Public Morals, and Defendant J had been convicted of having violated the Employment Security Act more than five times, and among which, prior to the suspension of execution, Defendant J was subject to a suspended sentence, and committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to a double crime.

C. On the other hand, the lower court determined the Defendants’ punishment by comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing, and there is no change in sentencing conditions to be newly considered in this court compared with the lower court.

In addition, the Defendants violated the Employment Security Act.