The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

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

evidence of seizure.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., one year and two months of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A and confiscation, ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants B, one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants C) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The facts that Defendant A led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake are favorable to the Defendant.

However, it is necessary to punish a criminal with severe damage to the function of the criminal justice by purchasing the subject of criminal punishment and causing confusion to the investigative agencies and the judiciary, thereby hindering the exercise of the state's legitimate penal authority. The defendant has been sentenced twice to punishment for the same crime, twice a fine, twice a suspended sentence for the same crime, twice a fine, 14 times a fine, and the fact that some of the crimes of this case were committed during the period of repeated crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances that led to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive, the circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, environment, occupation, etc., and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

B. Defendant B led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake, and the fact that the Defendant did not have any record of punishment for the same crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, there is a need for strict punishment as it seriously damages the function of the criminal justice by purchasing the subject of criminal punishment and causing confusion to investigation agencies and the judiciary, thereby hindering the exercise of the state's legitimate penal authority, and there is a history that the defendant has been sentenced two times of punishment due to the crime of dual punishment, two times of suspended execution, and five times of fine.