The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of six years, five years, and one year and six months, and one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1) Although Defendant C did not have a habitive behavior against fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habituality, thereby misunderstanding the legal doctrine on the crime of this case. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A, B, D, F, G, and H is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion of habitual fraud refers to the nature of the actor as a habit of repeatedly committing the act of fraud. In determining the existence of such habition, it is reasonable to view that: (a) even if the criminal record of fraud was important, but there was no criminal record of fraud, where the habit of fraud is recognized by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the frequency, means, methods, and motive of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do980, Nov. 24, 201). In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the number and frequency of the crime in this case; (b) the number and motive of the crime in this case; and (c) the same type of crime was repeated several times in a planned and systematic manner; (d) even if the Defendant had no criminal record prior to the crime in this case; and (e) even if there were no specific criminal records prior to the crime in this case, the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the extent of statutory punishment.