We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two and a half years, for a period of six months, for a defendant C, and for a defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The summary of the oral argument filed on October 26, 2016 and November 16, 2016, submitted after the lapse of the deadline for appeal by misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles, are determined only to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal.

Defendant

A’s defense counsel asserts that the cost of issuing a certified copy of the register, postal charges, office monthly rent, and management expenses should be excluded from the amount of additional collection through a summary of the oral argument on October 26, 2016. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal as a assertion raised after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal, and even if ex officio examination is conducted, such expenses are deemed to be excessive to the expenses incidental to the acquisition of money and valuables by Defendant A due to the crime of violating the law of defense. Therefore, the amount of additional collection cannot be deducted.

① With respect to the crime set forth in the first instance judgment, BE (No. 42 No. 1 of the crime set forth in the table of crime set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance) and No. 1-B of the criminal facts set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance. In relation to the crime set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance, BF (No. 217 No. 1 of the list of crimes set forth in the attached crime set forth in the table of crime set forth in the attached Table I), BG (No. 314 of the list of crimes set forth in the attached crime set forth in the table I), BH (No. 492 of the list of crimes set forth in the attached

② With respect to the crime set forth in the first instance judgment, the commission fees paid from BI (No. 1.606 table of the crime set forth in the table I.606) are not 3.7 million won, but 1.85 million won.

(3) 59,784,782 won and the value-added tax, which are 191,782,321 won and the value-added tax, shall not be deemed as consideration for the handling of legal affairs or shall be deducted from the amount of additional collection.

2) The first instance sentence of sentencing (the imprisonment of two years and six months, the additional collection of KRW 886,774,152) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) The written opinion of the defense counsel filed on September 29, 2016 and November 17, 2016, after the deadline for filing an appeal by misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles, is to the extent of supplement to the grounds for appeal.