Defendant

The judgment below against C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two months.

Defendant

A. B.

1. The grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the lower court against the Defendants are deemed to be too unaffortable that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (unfair punishment: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 2 years of confiscation, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of probation, 2 months of imprisonment with labor, 1 month of short term,

2. According to the ex officio determination (Defendant C) records and the facts in this court, Defendant C was sentenced on September 5, 2018 to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Western District Court and on March 5, 2019, which became final and conclusive on March 5, 2019. The criminal facts in this case against Defendant C constitute concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to which punishment becomes final and conclusive. Such criminal facts in this case against Defendant C are concurrent crimes under Article 39(1

In addition, Defendant C, as a CA student, was sentenced to an irregular term for falling under “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the lower judgment was declared, but it is apparent that Defendant C did not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 as at the time of sentencing in the trial.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against Defendant C cannot be maintained any longer.

3. The Defendants’ act in the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant A and B) is an act of participating in the singing crime committed in a systematic and planned manner, and is highly likely to cause harm to society, and the Defendants are in charge of keeping and withdrawing cash, and the degree of participation in the crime is not less exceptionally, and the Defendants’ act could have suffered additional damage due to the Defendants’ act, etc.

However, considering the fact that Defendant A and B did not have any other criminal experience, age, and reflects the amount of damage caused by fraud, the amount of damage caused by fraud is relatively small, and other circumstances such as Defendant A and B’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed unfair, and it is ex post facto.