Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and H (excluding the part of the compensation order) and Defendant A in the judgment of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, on the grounds of appeal, made a mistake of facts and an improper assertion in sentencing. However, on the second trial date, Defendant A explicitly withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts.

(D) The Defendant did not have taken part in the instant Bosing crime before December 1, 2018.

B. Sentencing 1) The sentence of the lower court against the above Defendants A, AH, BO, B, C, and D (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor of the lower judgment and 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor of the lower court, Defendant AH: two years of imprisonment, etc.; Defendant BO: imprisonment with prison labor of one year and 6 months; Defendant BP; Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor of eight months; Defendant B; three years of imprisonment with prison labor of three years; Defendant C; Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor of two years and 2 months; and Defendant D’s imprisonment with prison labor of two years and 2 months) is deemed unfair.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (defendant A, AH, BO, BP, C, and D: as stated in the foregoing 1); Defendant E’s imprisonment with labor for one year, etc. is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (defendant A) is examined ex officio as to the defendant A prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal against the defendant A and the prosecutor A.

A. Consolidated Hearing conducted by this court together with the appeals cases against the judgment below Nos. 1 and 2. Each of the offenses against Defendant A in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence shall be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below is no longer

B. Of the judgment below of the second instance, the second instance court ordered the Defendant A to additionally collect KRW 12 million on the grounds of Articles 10(1) and 8(1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds (hereinafter “Regulation of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds”).

According to Article 2 subparagraph 1, subparagraph 1, subparagraph 1 (o) of the Regulation on the Concealment of Criminal Proceeds, property or property benefits acquired or had a third party acquire due to fraud.