The judgment below

The part of the defendant D and I against the defendant D and I is reversed.

Defendant

D Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant I for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing: both the Defendants) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants [10 months of imprisonment (the 2016 Highest 276 cases as stated in the lower judgment) and six months of imprisonment (the 2016 Highest 417 cases as stated in the lower judgment), Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, 3 years of suspended execution (the 2016 Highest 276 cases as stated in the lower judgment), and 10 months of imprisonment (the 2016 Highest 509 cases as stated in the lower judgment), Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, 1 year and four months, 1 year and six months, and 3 years of suspended execution] are deemed unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court against the above Defendants A, C, D, and I is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants’ common criminal organizations, excluding Defendant D and I, have the characteristic that they are continuously and systematically combined with many people to commit a crime, and due to violence or collective nature, their existence itself is a serious threat to the maintenance of the legal order of the community and the well-being of the community. Based on the organization’s status, if they commit multiple violent and property crimes, they are directly and indirectly causing serious damage to the good citizens and create a sound social apprehension.

Therefore, there is a need to strictly overcome the defendants' activities as members of criminal organizations, regardless of whether specific and realistic damage has occurred.

Furthermore, the Defendants were in contact with the fighting with other criminal organizations by carrying a deadly weapon in connection with the BO office, as well as creating a considerable unstable situation by putting together the fighting distance of the Gu-dong where the general public freely pass through.

However, all the Defendants are against the recognition of the crime of the instant criminal organization activities.

Although the Defendants were mobilized under the mobilization order of the criminal organization, they did not actually use violence.

2) Defendant A’s Defendant A is in the first instance trial.