All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for five years, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (Seoul High Court Decision 2017No. 2017No. 3720 decided January 1, 2012) asserted the facts as the grounds for appeal on the ground of appeal against the judgment of the second court. However, at the first instance court, the Defendants withdrawn their respective arguments of mistake and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2017No3720 decided February 1, 201), and Seoul High Court Decision 2017No. 1595 decided July 1, 2015 (Seoul High Court Decision 2017No3720 decided July 20, Seoul High Court 2017). The lower court sentenced the Defendant A (the lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years, 3:6 months, and 3:38 million won, respectively, to Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for each of the following reasons).

B. The prosecutor (the court below's judgment No. 1 and No. 2) sentenced by the court below to the defendant A (the court below's judgment No. 1: 5 years of suspended execution of 3 years of imprisonment, and 4 years of imprisonment) and the defendant AB (the court below's judgment No. 2: 8 months of imprisonment) are too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance with respect to the judgment of the court of second instance, and the defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of second instance with respect to the judgment of the court of third instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings with respect to each of the above appeals. Since each of the above offenses against the defendant A and the offenses against the defendant AB with respect to the concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the above offenses against the defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained as they are.

In the application of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous changes, the order shall not be considered individually and formally, but shall be considered as a whole and substantially, and the severity of the sentence shall be considered.