The judgment below

The part on Defendant E is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted the Defendants of all the charges of this case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person engaged in business”, “a joint principal offender,” “a person engaged in aiding and abetting,” and “a person engaged in conspiracy” as prescribed in Article 15(1)2 of the Act

2. The decision of Defendant E ex officio is made.

With respect to a case on which only the defendant appealed, no more severe punishment than that of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be pronounced.

(Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In the application of the provision prohibiting any change in disadvantage, if the gravity between the irregular term and the regular term of the punishment, the maximum short term and the regular term of the irregular term of the punishment shall be compared.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006). According to the records, the first instance court sentenced Defendant E to a punishment for a short term of three years and six months, and a long term of four years and six months on the ground that Defendant E is a juvenile, and only Defendant E appealed against the first instance judgment. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment on the ground that Defendant E became an adult, and sentenced Defendant E to a fixed term of four years and imprisonment.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court may not sentence imprisonment with prison labor exceeding three years and six months, a short-term sentence sentenced by the first instance court, even in the instant case in which only Defendant E appealed.

Nevertheless, since the lower court sentenced Defendant E to four years of imprisonment in excess of this, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the prohibition of disadvantageous alteration, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part on Defendant E should be reversed.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant E.