The judgment below

Part 1, 2, 8, and 9 of the judgment of Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The determination of the summary of the grounds for appeal (in the case of Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and four months; Defendant C: Imprisonment with labor for a period of one year and two months; imprisonment with labor for a period of one year and one month and ten months as indicated in the judgment; and imprisonment with labor for a period of one year and one month) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is within the scope of the applicable sentences and the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the attached sentencing guidelines (at least 10 months of imprisonment).

Punishment was determined by comprehensively taking account of the records of crimes such as the same repeated crime, the degree of participation, and the frequency of crimes.

Even if this court re-examines the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing which are set forth in the sentencing guidelines, the determination of the original sentence is inappropriate.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the part concerning the first, second,8, and nine crimes of Defendant C’s holding is within the scope of punishment and the recommended sentencing guidelines set out in the attached sentencing guidelines (at least six months of imprisonment).

The punishment was determined by taking account of the crimes, frequency, etc. during the suspension of execution.

However, the circumstances agreed with the victim F (2018 Highest 5339) were not reflected in the appellate court.

If this court examines the sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing, the amount of the original sentence is somewhat inappropriate.

C. As to the part concerning the crime of Article 10 of the judgment of Defendant C, the lower court determined the punishment in consideration of the degree of participation in the crime of aiding and abetting electronic records, etc., and the degree of participation in the crime of aiding and abetting electromagnetic records, etc., the crime of aiding and abetting the electromagnetic records, etc.

Even if this court re-examines the sentencing factors, the determination of this part of the original judgment is unreasonable.

3. Conclusion, Defendant C’s partial appeal is with merit.

Pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C regarding the crimes of Articles 1, 2, 8, and 9 of the judgment of the court below is reversed,

Defendant

A’s appeal and part of Defendant C’s appeal are without merit.

Pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A’s appeal and judgment of the court below.