The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the lower court (e., imprisonment of one year and six months; confiscation; imprisonment of two years and confiscation; imprisonment of one year and six months; and imprisonment of one year and six months) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the grounds for appeal by Defendant B is a discretionary determination based on the statutory penalty that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in the Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the principle of court-oriented and directness.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning for sentencing, imposed the above sentence on the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the circumstances favorable to sentencing asserted by the Defendant in the trial have already been determined by the lower court; (b) the circumstances favorable to sentencing are sufficiently taken into account when determining the sentence at the lower court; (c) the Defendant has committed an offence against the two victims by sharing the role in advance with his accomplices; (d) the amount of damage reaches the total amount of KRW 34 million; (e) the amount of damage reaches the total amount of KRW 34 million; and (e) the victim did not receive a letter from the victim I; and (e) the victim F did not want criminal punishment for fraud, etc. even before the instant case.