All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of 9 years for each of 5 years for Defendant B, C, E, M, N, P, and Q.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first instance court's unfair sentencing argument of the remaining Defendants except Defendant N and U is unfair that the sentence imposed on Defendant F (five years of imprisonment; three years of imprisonment; Defendant R; three years of imprisonment; Defendant C, D, F; and Q: imprisonment of two years and six months; Defendant E, I; J; J; J; J;O; Q; and two years of imprisonment of two years and six; Defendant H, K; K; K; K; L; and one year and ten months of imprisonment of one year and eight months; Defendant M; and the second instance court's imprisonment of one year and one year and six; and the third instance court's imprisonment of one year and one year and six); and the sentence imposed on Defendant D (one year of one) by Defendant F.

B. Since the crime of fraud by using computers of the Busan District Court case No. 2017No. 3635 and the crime of crime organization activity among the facts charged in the instant case, the final judgment of conviction extends to the crime of crime organization activity among the facts charged in the instant case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below 1 which found the guilty of the charged facts should be pronounced not guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

It is unfair that the first instance judgment of the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing is too uneasible to the defendants.

2. The judgment of ex officio (Defendant F, D) and the judgment of the court of first instance rendered on Defendant F, each of which was sentenced to the judgment of second instance, and Defendant F and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of first instance. Defendant F and the prosecutor respectively filed an appeal against the judgment of second instance, and the judgment of first instance and the judgment of third instance on Defendant D were sentenced respectively. Defendant D and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of first instance on the judgment of first instance, and Defendant D and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of third instance, respectively.

This Court decided to consolidate all appeals cases, and decided to hold the first and second trials against Defendant F and the first and third trials against Defendant D with respect to each of the crimes in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the crimes in relation to each of the crimes in relation to the first and third trials against Defendant F.