All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (unfair sentencing) are too heavy in the sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment).

B. Defendant B (misunderstanding of the legal doctrine) The facts charged in the instant case are subject to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered against the Defendant (Seoul District Court Branch Branch of the Busan District Court Decision 2017 Godan1002, Jun. 29, 2017; hereinafter “the first judgment”), and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, where multiple acts falling under the same crime name or continuous acts are conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal interests and interests of the damage are identical, each of these acts should be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the unity, continuity of the criminal intent is not recognized, or the method and location of the crime are not the same, each crime constitutes substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3172, Sept. 8, 2006). However, even after the release of Defendant B, the Defendants prepared three new crimes for compulsory appearance, callphonephones, and shared control-related information by opening a KaKakao Stockholm group in preparation for enforcement.

The call articles and internal guidelines were newly established, such as designating a place different from the place where it was discovered as a vehicle waiting place.

Therefore, since the identity and continuity of the crime of this case are not recognized in the first judgment and the crime of this case, it cannot be viewed as a single comprehensive crime, and it constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.

Defendant

B’s assertions in this part are without merit.

B. As to the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, the lower court should comprehensively consider all the conditions of the instant arguments and the sentencing indicated in the records, including favorable circumstances (a confession by the Defendants), unfavorable circumstances (such as the criminal records before and after the same end), etc., including the Defendants’ age character and character environment, motive means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.