The part concerning Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. fine.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (i) the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants (as to Defendant C: fine of two million won: fine of two million won; fine of one million won; and (ii) the second judgment against Defendant B: fine of one million won; and (iii) the second judgment against Defendant D: fine of one million won; and (iv) the second judgment against Defendant D, respectively.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, this Court tried at a concurrent hearing of each appeal case against the first and second judgments by the lower court. Since each of the crimes in the first and second judgments by the lower court relating to Defendant C is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each of the crimes in relation to Defendant C should be sentenced to punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the part against Defendant C in the first and second judgments by the lower court was no longer maintained.

3. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendants’ recognition of the instant crime and the fact that there is no record of the same kind of crime against the Defendants, the Defendants’ acknowledgement of the allegation of unfair sentencing on Defendant B and D’s second judgment, the crime of this case committed by the Defendants without being aware of the Defendants’ acceptance in the detention house is not good, Defendant D was three times, Defendant B committed two times, and there is no change in special circumstances or circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was sentenced, and there is no change in the circumstances that may be newly considered in the sentencing. In full view of the statutory punishment of the instant crime, other circumstances, including the Defendants’ character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is deemed appropriate.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

4. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is without examining the Defendant C’s assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds that the judgment below ex officio reversals the above.