Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part, excluding the dismissed part of the application for compensation, Defendant 2, 3, and Defendant 4 of the judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant G’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts was involved only in the crime committed in the first period of the crime list of the attached Table 1 in the judgment of KRW 5,00 from July 20, 2019 to August 21, 2019 (the crime described in KRW 11,056,300 in total on 69 occasions) among the crimes committed in the attached Table 1 in the judgment of KRW 5,00,000. However, Defendant received KRW 11,056,30 in total on 169 occasions, it was deemed that the Defendant was involved from June 8, 2019 to receive KRW 28,240,40 on a total of 163 occasions, and it was erroneous in the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the Defendants as follows is too unreasonable.

1) In the first instance judgment of Defendant O-A: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year, two months, and three years: imprisonment with labor of two months: imprisonment of KRW 3 million; imprisonment with labor of KRW 2,00,000: KRW 300: KRW 6 months; imprisonment with labor of August 3); imprisonment with labor of KRW 6 months; and imprisonment with labor of KRW 4: imprisonment with labor of KRW 1-B; imprisonment with labor of KRW 1-4 with labor of KRW 1-B; and 2-4 with labor of KRW 5) with labor of KRW 5: Defendant G-No. 6) with labor of KRW 5: imprisonment of August 6.

2. Each appeal case against DefendantO was consolidated at the court below's ex officio determination of Defendant O, E, and A against Defendant O, the court below's judgment, the court below's judgment Nos. 1, 5 against Defendant E, and the court below's judgment Nos. 1, 1-b, 2, and 4 against Defendant A. Of the judgment below and the judgment of the court below's judgment No. 1-b, 2, and 4 against Defendant O, the crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is one concurrent crime under Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, among the judgment below of the court below of first, second, third and fourth, the part concerning the crime in paragraphs (b) and (2) through (4) of the judgment of the defendant A, and the part concerning the defendant E of the judgment of the court below of fifth cannot be maintained any more.

3. Defendant G’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts