The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

C In 8 months of imprisonment, Defendant D shall be punished by a fine of 5,00.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. The decision of the court below that sentenced the community service order of two years of suspended execution and two hundred hours of time in the month of imprisonment for Defendant C with prison labor for Defendant C, and the fine of five million won in the case of Defendant D is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on each of the defendants of the judgment, the court below ex officio examined the defendants, and the court below erred by omitting the attached crime list among the reasons of the judgment of the court below, thereby not specifying criminal facts, which affected the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

[The reason for the judgment of the court below] The crime-based office of the defendant was planned to dispose of the vehicle from the high school line K to the smuggling, and to divide profits by disposing of it to the smuggling exporter. At the proposal of the person who is to have the profit, the Eul and the defendants who are employed by the lending company. The defendant C borrowed the car from the siren company, and dispose of it. The defendant C conspired to share the movement to the place of the crime, the loan of the siren, the transportation of the leased vehicle, the transportation of the leased vehicle, and the removal of the GPS by the leased vehicle.

On September 20, 2012, at around 18:45, the Defendants, along with A and D, waited outside the management office of the victim L in Suwon-si, A, C, and D, and Defendant B presented the driver’s license in the name of N in the name of the president of the management office of the management office of the company in which the Plaintiff entered the above office and submitted the driver’s license in the name of N in the name of A to the O, who is the president of the management office of the company in which the company in charge of the purchase and sale of the company in question (hereinafter referred to as “the Defendants would return the Grand Co., Ltd. at KRW 300,000 to September 23, 2012”).

However, the facts were that the Defendants and A, B, and K would dispose of the said siren, and they would normally return it.