The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of 3 years and 6 months, and Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, Defendant B, and C: two years of suspended execution, community service order for 80 hours in August, and Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) that the lower court sentenced the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

B. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts is merely an order to recruit and withdraw a passbook from the lower part of X, which is the total responsibility of the singishing organization, and is not the total responsibility of the singishing organization.

The part of fraud against the victim AG of the case No. 2 of the 2016 Highest 4682 charged is not a part of the criminal act committed by the defendant or the defendant in the licensing organization.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

Improper argument of sentencing by the court below is unfair because each sentence that the court below sentenced to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants B and C transferred the access media with the knowledge of the fact that the Defendants were used for the crime of Bosing “ Bosing,” and the fact that the access media was actually used for the crime is disadvantageous to the victim.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the Defendants had no record of punishment for the same kind of punishment or a fine or heavier punishment, the fact that the Defendants recognized the crime of this case and reflected the mistakes, and the fact that the Defendants participated in the crime of this case and did not have much actual profits.

In addition, in full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants was proper and the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

It is reasonable to find out circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.