The part against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of each of the judgment below against Defendant A (the imprisonment of August of the judgment below, the imprisonment of June of the judgment below, the suspension of the execution of June of the judgment of the court below, and the community service time of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The respective sentences of the second instance judgment against the Defendants (two years of suspended sentence of June, one of the two years of suspended sentence of community service, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) are deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below on the part against Defendant A and the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal against Defendant A is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal against Defendant A, and the judgment of the court below against the above Defendant was rendered separately, and the Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court decided to jointly examine each

Thus, each of the judgment below's crimes is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and a single sentence shall be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The lower court determined the Defendant’s appeal against the Defendant E by taking into account the following: (a) the amount obtained by the said Defendant; (b) the part of the damage inflicted by the said Defendant was recovered; (c) the Defendant was aware of and against the crime; (d) there was no criminal record; and (e) the victim was damaged in the course of operating the illegal horse site.

No change in circumstances exists in comparison with the original judgment (the defendant agreed with the victim) in the trial of the political party, and the sentencing of the original court is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion when comprehensively considering the following factors: the conditions of sentencing, statutory penalty, sentencing guidelines, etc.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above argument of sentencing is not accepted.

4. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant E is groundless and thus, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.