The remainder of the judgment of the court below, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, and the defendant A and the second judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment of 1 year and 8 months, confiscation, and 2 months: imprisonment of 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (the first instance court: imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months, confiscation, and 2 months: imprisonment of 4 months) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C’s punishment of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D The sentence of the lower court (No. 1 and 6 months of imprisonment, confiscation, 2 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. Defendant AC’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

F. The lower court’s punishment (two years and four months of imprisonment, confiscation) of Defendant AD No. 2 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Ex officio determination (1) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, B, and D, this Court tried to jointly examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Among the judgment below, each of the crimes of Defendant A, B, and D among the crimes of the judgment of the court below is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the parts of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant A, B, and D cannot be reversed.

(2) Prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, according to the records, Defendant C was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four months in a crime of fraud in the Gwangju District Court’s Maritime Branch on October 8, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant previous conviction”), and Defendant C’s first instance judgment was committed under the relationship between the instant previous offense and the instant criminal offense under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the punishment should be determined by taking into account equity and the case of concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant C among the judgment of the court of first instance can no longer be maintained.

B. Defendant AC and AD.