All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1’s imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of the first instance and for the crime of the second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Unfair sentencing

A. Defendant 1’s imprisonment for four and a half years with prison labor sentenced by the lower court and the imprisonment for five years with prison labor sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s sentence of 4 years and 6 months, which the Defendant sentenced, is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment, and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the lower judgment, and the said court decided to concurrently deliberate on each of the above appeals.

However, on January 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch (2010 Gohap263, 201 Gohap35). On August 24, 2012, the Defendant appealed from the Seoul High Court, which was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment (2012No443), and filed another appeal (2012No443), but on October 25, 2012, the said Seoul High Court's judgment became final and conclusive (2012Do10672).

Each of the crimes of the court below in the first instance is a concurrent crime with the above final judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of the court below in the second instance is a crime after the above final judgment, the crime of the court below in the first instance and the crime of the court below in the second instance shall be separately sentenced to punishment, regardless of the above consolidated trial decision, so the judgment of the court below shall not

The first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor against the lower judgment: (a) under the circumstances that: (b) even though the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was extremely large and ten years have elapsed since the date of occurrence of the damage, the victims seem to have suffered serious property damage and mental suffering; and (c) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime with the attitude of recognizing and opposing all the instant crime; and (d) the instant crime was finalized.