The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant

A, E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the court below against Defendant A and the above Defendants (Defendant A: 1 year of imprisonment and Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 1 year and 4 months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E-1) misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant E, even though they voluntarily surrenders, the lower court did not make any decision thereon and recognized only the concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is unlawful.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant E (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The mitigation of the self-denunciation under Article 52 of the Criminal Code alleged by the misunderstanding of the legal principles of Defendant E is merely a discretionary mitigation belonging to the court’s discretion, and Defendant E voluntarily surrenders.

Even if the reduction of self-denunciation does not violate the law, and there is no need to determine the assertion on it.

In addition, even if the judgment of the court below is examined, as stated in the reasons for sentencing against Defendant E, Defendant E was sentenced to punishment by sufficiently considering the fact that Defendant E was present at the investigative agency to confession criminal facts and actively cooperate in the investigation.

Therefore, Defendant E’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is rejected.

B. Each of the grounds for appeal 1) The following are the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant: (a) Defendant A led to the confession of all of the instant crimes and the attitude of reflecting the mistake; (b) Defendant agreed to the full agreement with the victim of special injury in the lower court; (c) Defendant deposited a small amount of money on behalf of the victim insurance companies; (d) the victim companies reserved objection; and (e) the victim companies received each of the above deposited money; and (e) the victim insurance companies were partly recovered by accomplice B.

However, the sentencing of the court below seems to have been determined by fully considering these favorable circumstances, and the new sentencing is conducted in the appellate court except that the victim company received the money deposited by the defendant.