Defendant

The judgment of the court below against A and the defendant F shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant J’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A’s sentence of the lower court (Article 1: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, and imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court: 8 months) is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment ex officio is examined prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

Defendant

The judgment of the court below against A filed an appeal against the defendant A, and the court decided to consolidate the above appeal cases.

All of the crimes committed by the lower judgment convicting Defendant A are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence shall be sentenced within the scope of a limited term of punishment imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the lower judgment against Defendant A became unable to be maintained as it is.

3. The lower court determined on the part of the Defendant J, based on the nature of the instant crime committed by the Defendants’ collusion and formulated a detailed plan in advance and organized manner, and based on the nature of the punishment of the instant crime, which was installed on the oil pipelines and valves for oil oiling, determined the punishment against Defendant J by taking into account the unfavorable circumstances against Defendant J, the role of Defendant J in the instant crime, and other factors.

Defendant

Even if the J’s examination of the grounds for the imposition of sentence on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence on Defendant J does not appear to be reasonable when comprehensively considering the conditions for sentencing as prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the applicable sentences, and the sentences imposed on the same kind of case, etc., and no other circumstance is found to deem that it exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in sentencing, or that it is unreasonable to deem that it has exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion in sentencing.

Therefore, Defendant J does not accept Defendant J’s argument of unfair sentencing.

4. Determination as to Defendant F.