Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable that the punishment [the punishment of imprisonment of three years, the number of years in prison (the first instance court), the imprisonment of six months (the second instance court), the Defendant L: the imprisonment of two years, the imprisonment of two years (the first instance court) and the number of years in prison (the first instance court) of the evidence] of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasons for ex officio appeal as to Defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

Defendant

A filed an appeal against the part of the judgment of the court of first instance and against the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to jointly examine each of the above appeal cases.

Each of the crimes committed by the lower judgment convicting the above Defendant is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus a single sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against Defendant A and the lower judgment of the lower court of Article 2 cannot be maintained any more.

3. In full view of all matters concerning sentencing of Defendant L, including the following: (a) determination on the unfair argument of sentencing of Defendant L’s unfair sentencing; (b) Defendant L made a confession of the crime; (c) cooperation in the investigation; (d) aiding and abetting the crime of fraud by withdrawing and remitting cash; (c) most of the profits were paid to accomplices; (d) there was no previous conviction; (e) the mother of the above Defendant was leading; and (e) the fact that the above Defendant was submitted with employment guarantee; (c) there were favorable reasons for sentencing; (d) the amount of damage was continued on terms of compensation; (e) the amount of damage was KRW 240 million; (e) the amount of damage was paid KRW 4 million; (e) the injury was not recovered; (e) the Defendant’s age, family relationship; (e) the economic situation was committed; and (e) the background and motive leading up to the crime; and (e) the records and changes in the sentencing mentioned in the instant case, the judgment of the court below against the above Defendant is deemed reasonable; and (e) the Defendant’s assertion of change of change of circumstances is without merit

4. If so, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to Defendant A.