Defendant

All appeals filed by A and B and the Prosecutor against Defendant C are dismissed.

1. Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) only:

B “B” is only called “B.”

Part on the case

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defendants 1) Defendant A’s punishment (a prison term of 3 years, 10 months, 30 million won from confiscation, and 30 million won from a surcharge) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to revenues including the field, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant only simply made a simple appearance with C’s proposal, and did not import the field in collusion with Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of 3 years, 10 months, 30,000 won from the confiscation, 30,000 won from the surcharge) is too unreasonable.

B. Determination 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the fact that the Defendant conspired with Defendant A on December 30, 2016, as stated in this part of the facts charged, was about 600 square meters, and around February 1, 2017, around 48.7 grams and 403 square meters, respectively, can be sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to each of the Defendants’ respective alleged sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the Defendants’ respective alleged sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, determined the Defendants’ punishment by taking account of the unfavorable or favorable circumstances against the Defendants.

In addition to the circumstances taken into account by the court below, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below.

Article 51 of the Criminal Code, which is shown in the hearing of the court below and the party concerned, shall be comprehensively considered.