Of the judgment of the first instance, Defendant A and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and four months, and Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is that the Defendants’ grounds for appeal against each sentence (two years of imprisonment, two years of imprisonment, three years of imprisonment, and three years of imprisonment) in the first instance of the 1st instance of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is too large and unfair, and that the prosecutor’s reasons for appeal are too small and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant A paid KRW 2.3 million to the Victim AZ (No. 26 of the inundation of the first instance judgment), and received a letter of suspicion from the Victim AS (No. 28 of the inundation of the first instance judgment) in the first instance trial, with KRW 13,350,000.

Meanwhile, in separate cases, the Z and AA, as the Defendant and his accomplice, have received a letter by paying the full amount of damages, etc. to the victim AZ (No. 26 of the crime committed in the judgment of the first instance), the victim AR (No. 27 of the crime committed in the judgment of the first instance), the victim AY (No. 29 of the crime committed in the judgment of the first instance), and the victim AS (No. 28 of the crime committed in the judgment of the first instance) (the victims related to the Defendant’s crime were compensated in whole). Examining these circumstances together with various sentencing situations taking into account the “decision on the sentence of the first instance judgment of the second instance”) of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance judgment seems to be somewhat unreasonable.

B. In the instant case where Defendants B, C, and B were partly victims during the appellate trial, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions that may be particularly considered in the appellate trial, other than being taken by paying part of the amount of damage to AV (No. 6 of the daily list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance court), and AW (No. 6 of the daily list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance court), the first instance court’s determination is difficult to deem that the first instance judgment is too heavy or unreasonable on the ground that the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, health conditions, family relationship, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and other various circumstances indicated in the column of “reasons for sentencing” were considered in full view of the various circumstances indicated in the column of the judgment of the first instance court.

Therefore, Defendants and prosecutors.