All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Seized evidence 12 shall be confiscated.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Article 1: 1 year and April, confiscation, and the second judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) of the lower court is unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination of ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the first and second judgment of the court below, and the court of the trial decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above appeal cases.

Since each of the offenses against the accused is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, each judgment of the court below against the accused cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is decided as follows through pleading.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment below] Criminal facts and summary of evidence recognized by the court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment below 1 and 2. Thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act regarding the choice of punishment, each of the concurrent crimes with prison labor, the Defendant took part in the crime with the reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, among the concurrent crimes with prison labor, pursuant to the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and Article 48(1)1 of the same Act,

It is inevitable to impose severe punishment because the crime of Bosing consists of organized and planned crimes against many unspecified victims and its social harm is serious.

However, both the defendant and his family members have recognized the crime of this case, and they have continuously endeavored to reach an agreement even in the difficult economic situation and agreed with the victim of the first instance judgment, and some of the agreed victims and family members have reached an agreement with the victim AE and AF of the second instance judgment.