All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the additional collection of 15 million won for two years and two years and two years and two years and two, and the imprisonment of 4 months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined a punishment by taking into account the following: (a) Defendant A voluntarily left China and participated in the organization of Bosing criminal acts; (b) subsequently, Defendant A took part in the criminal act of acquiring KRW 185 million; (c) Defendant A’s direct deception was KRW 150 million for five months; (d) Defendant A acquired KRW 15 million in consideration of his/her acquisition; (e) Defendant A’s participation in and fraud amount of the criminal act; and (e) Defendant G’s fraud that has become final and conclusive; and (e) the punishment should be imposed in consideration of

Defendant

A has no record of crime exceeding a fine, and Defendant G has no specific record of crime except for fraud in the judgment that became final and conclusive, and Defendant A has recovered part of the damage to the victim CW and X when the judgment became final and conclusive, and agreed with the above victims, but Defendant A has the record of having been punished for the same kind of crime, the victims have not been recovered most of the damage, Defendant G has not recovered entirely from the victims' damage, and other various sentencing conditions, including the Defendants' age, character and behavior, the method and circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as a whole, the punishment imposed by the court below was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not heavy.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.