The entire judgment of the court of first instance and the part against Defendant A in the judgment of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The sentence of the lower court No. 1 (a year of imprisonment, confiscation) and the sentence of the lower court No. 2 (a year of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

Shebly Defendant B’s sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the first instance court against the Defendants by the prosecutor is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the Prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment.

The first and second original courts sentenced Defendant A to a separate trial under the order of the Suwon District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 5451 and Suwon District Court 2016 High Court 8259 High Court 8259 High Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 8259 (Joint) and High Court 812 High Court 2017 High Court 2017 High Court 812 (Joint). The appeal against each of the above judgments was filed, and the court of the first and second original court decided to jointly examine the above appeal cases. Since each of the offenses against Defendant A is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A was reversed in this respect.

B. We examine the grounds for appeal by Defendant B and the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment.

According to the records, Defendant B was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud on April 19, 2017 (the judgment of the court below No. 2) by Defendant B, who was sentenced to imprisonment on April 27, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 27, 2017. As such, in relation to the crime of fraud for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of this case of this case in the first instance judgment by the first instance judgment after considering equity and the mitigation of punishment or exemption pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in the concurrent crime relationship after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt the punishment. In this regard, the judgment of the court below against Defendant B

3. As such, the conclusion is that Defendant A is about 1, 2.