The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D’s sentence (2 years of imprisonment; 1 year and six months of imprisonment; 3 months of imprisonment; 8 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant F (1) In fact-finding Defendant F (1), there is no evidence to prove that the number of typists acquired with stolen articles from A, F and B is a total of 1,94 copies, and as to the remaining 1,153 copies as found guilty by the lower court, the Defendant acquired them as stolen articles.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all the charges that the Defendant acquired a total of 3,147 copies of 3,147 copies as stolen goods, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are favorable to the Defendants: Defendant A and B.

Defendants led to confession and reflect on crimes.

Defendant

A deposited KRW 30 million at the time of the trial of the court of first instance for the victim gold farm Co., Ltd., and made efforts to recover damage by additionally depositing KRW 30 million at the trial of the court of first instance.

Defendant

B deposited 44,083,00 won at the time of the trial of the first instance for the victim, and made efforts to recover the damage by additionally depositing 5 million won at the trial of the first instance.

Defendants have no record of criminal punishment for the same crime.

Defendant

A has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine.

Defendant

B On February 25, 2016, after being sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence to one-year imprisonment with labor for special injury, etc. by the Gwangju District Court on March 4, 2016, the sentence became final and conclusive on March 4, 2016, equity should be taken into account when the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the above special injury crime, etc.,

On the other hand, the following is disadvantageous.

The Defendants were aware of the crime of this case in the course of serving as the victim company.