All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Defendant

A shall be 800,000 won by fraud to the applicant for compensation.

1. Regarding the summary of the grounds for appeal and the judgment of the court below (2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and 2 years of imprisonment), the defendants asserted that the defendants are too unreasonable due to their excessive absence, and the prosecutor argues that it is improper because it is too unfasible.

Since the crime of this case was planned and organized for many unspecified persons, it is necessary to severely punish them, and the Defendants took part in the crime without any awareness of any particular crime and take part in the collection of money, etc. to take part in the crime. The degree of participation is not less than that of the victims, and thereby, the victims were not recovered from the victims, and the Defendant A did not even have the record of criminal punishment due to the crime of the same veterinary act, but re-offending during the period of repeated crime, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendants led to the instant crime; (b) the Defendants made efforts to recover damage by making an agreement with some victims or depositing the amount of damage; and (c) the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, family environment; and (d) the developments leading to the instant crime and the outcome of the instant crime; and (b) the sentence of the lower court is deemed appropriate; and (c) it is too heavy or too unreasonable to the extent that it is too unreasonable.

2. The appeal filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that all of the appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are without merit, and the applicant’s application for compensation order seeking payment of KRW 800,000 by deceptive money from the trial court to the Defendant A is accepted as the applicant’s claim pursuant to Article 25(1)1, Article 31(1), Article 31(2), and Article 25(3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Provided, That “a copy of the Bank Account” in the summary of the evidence “2016 Highest 1290” in the judgment of the court below is a clerical error of “a copy of the Bank Account.”