The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and two months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant B: imprisonment of one and half years, confiscation, and Defendant C: imprisonment of six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (as to Defendant C), the lower court omitted the judgment on the aggravation of repeated offenses, and the lower court’s punishment is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was that the lower court omitted the judgment on the aggravation of repeated crimes while determining the punishment against Defendant C.

However, in light of the fact that the court below, while holding a criminal record for a repeated crime and showing the relevant evidence in the summary column of the evidence, it appears that the court below merely omitted the statement in the applicable column of the law, despite having determined the punishment against Defendant C by aggravated aggravated repeated crimes, and did not err in the judgment below that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the omission of aggravated aggravation of repeated crimes, as alleged by the prosecutor.

does not appear.

This part of the Prosecutor's argument is not accepted.

B. The instant crime of determining the unjust assertion of sentencing by Defendant B is highly harmful to the society by promoting the spirit of public spirit and lowering the desire to work, and thus, it is necessary to strictize it.

Defendant

B is the actual operator of the game of this case, and as a result of the police crackdowns on the fact that he was the actual operator, it is not good that the crime is committed by inducing A and C, an employee, to make a false statement in order to conceal the fact that he was the actual operator.

However, the period of operation of the game of this case is not a relatively short period of time for a weak month, and criminal proceeds derived from Defendant B seems to be less significant.

Defendant

B There is no history of criminal punishment exceeding the same crime or suspended execution, and the circumstances of supporting the family, including young children, are also recognized, and it is against the depth of recognizing the error of the crime in this case.

The age of Defendant B, and others.