The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, C, and D among them shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A and B shall be sentenced to one year and eight months of imprisonment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the lower court against the Defendants A, B, and C: Imprisonment with prison labor for each of two years, and Defendant D: the first-mentioned decision

(d)each of the crimes listed in [Attachment IV] Nos. 1 to 5, and 2-B of the Decision.

4 months of imprisonment, No. 1 of the holding

(d) 4 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes listed in [Attachment IV] through 20, and Defendant F: The imprisonment without prison labor for six months is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the reasoning for appeal by Defendant D and his defense counsel, the judgment of the court below ex officio (defendant D) was handed down on February 13, 2014 as the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on February 13, 2014, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2014. Thus, the facts constituting the crime of the court below’s judgment No. 1

(d)each of the crimes in [Attachment IV] Nos. 1 to 19 and 2-b.

Although the crime and the crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive are to be determined after considering equity and mitigation or exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is to conduct the crime No. 1.

(d)each of the crimes in [Attachment IV] Nos. 1 to 5 and 2-b.

The crime of which judgment becomes final and conclusive is deemed to be concurrent crimes with the crime of which judgment becomes final and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of Articles 6 through 19 of the crime of Articles 6 through 20 of the above Table 37 of the Criminal Act is committed as concurrent crimes.

In addition, even though special larceny is provided for by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years, the judgment of the court below is erroneous that the defendant D was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four months without prison labor.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against Defendant D cannot be maintained any longer.

B. The Defendants A, B, and C shall suspend construction or auction through the Internet for a long time (the Defendants A, B, C, and F) on the grounds of appeal.