Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor (one year of imprisonment) and the second instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor (four months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s sentence against the Defendants to the prosecutor (one year of imprisonment, six months of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service) is deemed to be too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

A. As to Defendant A, the first instance court rendered a judgment after the completion of separate hearings with the above court 2014 high-level 886, 1084, 1515, and 1571 (Jointity), and the second instance court rendered a judgment after the completion of separate hearings with the above court 2014 high-level 2895, respectively. As to the first instance judgment, Defendant A and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the lower court, and Defendant A filed an appeal against the second instance court, and this court rendered a decision to jointly deliberate each of the above appeals cases.

B. However, since each crime of the lower court against Defendant A is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, it should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the lower court of the first instance cannot be exempted from all reversal.

3. Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing (Defendant J part)

A. Defendant J committed another same kind of crime on May 20, 201, despite the fact that Defendant J was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for fraud on May 20, 2010, and a two-year suspended sentence, and did not agree with the victim.

B. However, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of and against the instant crime; (b) the victim recovered approximately KRW 28.7 million out of the amount of damage; (c) the Defendant did not have any other criminal records other than the aforementioned previous conviction; and (d) the Defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct; (b) the background of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant J is too unreasonable.

(c) therefore,.