The judgment below

Defendant A, C, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that Defendants D (A) was the head of the team, who was in charge of the management of the organization in charge of counselors Y, Z, AA, etc. on the 18th floor of the Cheongsi apartment building from May 12, 2017 to June 14, 2017, but Defendant D was merely a call center counselor. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant D is too unreasonable and unfair. 2) The remaining Defendants except Defendant D, who were sentenced to the said sentence is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination of Defendant C, E, F, H, J, or L with respect to Defendant C, E, F, H, H, J, or L is ex officio prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal concerning Defendant C, E, F, H, J, or L.

On February 7, 2020, the above Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for two years and eight months with prison labor for Defendant C, for Defendant E, one year and ten months with prison labor for Defendant F, two years and six months with prison labor for Defendant H, two years and six months with prison labor for Defendant J, and one year and eight months with prison labor for Defendant H, and one year and eight months with prison labor for Defendant E, H and J, for Defendant C, on March 2, 2020; for Defendant C, March 10, 2020 for Defendant L; and for Defendant F, on March 12, 2020 for Defendant F, each of the above offenses against the above Defendants shall be determined by taking into account each of the above crimes, the act of joining the organization, and the latter part of Article 37(1) of the Criminal Act, and the latter part of the Criminal Act shall be determined in accordance with equity.

Therefore, among the judgment below which did not consider this, the part against the above Defendants could no longer be maintained.

B. The lower court duly adopted the Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts.