All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact-finding or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the surcharge imposed on Defendant B and C1 and the scale of the proceeds actually earned from the instant crime, the lower court’s erroneous determination of the amount of penalty imposed on the lower court (Defendant B: Defendant B: 2 year of suspended sentence of October, additional collection, Defendant C: 2 year of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, Defendant C: 2 year of suspended sentence of October, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the additional collection charges of Defendant B and C, Defendant B and C received KRW 33 million from the investigative agency, and paid KRW 21 million among them to B and AC, and the remainder of KRW 12 million was divided into Defendant B and C. Defendant C brought about KRW 7 million on their own share. Defendant C stated that Defendant B used for surgery expenses, etc., and Defendant B stated that Defendant B was paid KRW 11.6 million in total under the name of documents, and Defendant B and C made a statement that Defendant B received KRW 1.6 million in total from Defendant A as a statement of the above Defendants. Since the circumstances such as Defendant B and C’s use of the above revenue for another Defendant do not interfere with the above recognition, the allegation of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the additional collection charges of the above Defendants is without merit.

B. Although the Defendants acknowledged the Defendants’ respective crimes of this case and the number of participation in Defendant B and C is relatively not high, the Defendants’ crime of this case, which acquired the profits by selling apartment units in the name of the disabled who did not actually intend to sell apartment units, is deemed to have been committed by the disabled persons.