All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The first deliberation sentence of Defendant A (unfair sentencing) (the imprisonment of 10 months, the suspended sentence of 2 years, the additional collection of 33.7 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing), the time when Defendant C directly operated the rehabilitation team is not around February 8, 2014, but after April 8, 2014.

2) While misunderstanding the legal principles (A) while Defendant C operated the rehabilitation team, Defendant C merely aided and abetted the act of violating the law of defense and protection as a joint principal offender, this does not bear any liability as a joint principal offender.

(B) As to collection, ① profits acquired by Defendant C from February 2014 to March 2014 during the period from February 2014, when Defendant C did not directly operate the rehabilitation team, are not KRW 7,658,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000

3) The first deliberation punishment (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of 385 million won) on the sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

E, F (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendants were employed by B and Defendant C and received wages, and did not obtain profits through the instant crime, the first instance court sentenced the Defendants to the following additional charges:

2) The first instance sentencing sentence (Defendant E: fine of KRW 7 million and penalty of KRW 57 million and penalty of KRW 57 million, Defendant F: fine of KRW 3 million and penalty of KRW 18.4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the Defendant C’s assertion of mistake, Defendant C shall be deemed to have been aware of the facts.