Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part concerning each of the crimes of 2020 order 618-2, 3, 4, 2020 order 649 and 2020 order 952.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the punishment of each judgment of the court below (Article 1:4 months of imprisonment and fines of 100,000 won, fines of 200,000 won of imprisonment with prison labor, and fines of 1 year and August, and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor and 2 months, and 3 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. All the defendants appealed to the judgment of the court below on official authority, and since this court has decided to concurrently deliberate on each of the above appeals cases, the part concerning each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Articles 2020, 618-2, 3, 4, 2020, 649 and 200, 952, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be sentenced to one punishment in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent offenses in the

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the above parts, and the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained as they are.

3. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the sentencing of the judgment on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the crime of Articles 2020, 618(1) and 2020, 989 of the Criminal Act is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. The Criminal Procedure Act of the Republic of Korea, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle,

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that 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). There is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing following the lower judgment, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case.