A. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ mistakes are divided and reflected, the sentence imposed by the lower court (the sentence of 8 months imprisonment and 1 year of suspended sentence of 6 months imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants’ nature of crime is not good, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

2. We also examine the judgment prosecutor and the Defendants’ assertion.

Defendant

Although A committed embezzlement, the Defendants did not intend to recover damage to the victim, but did not commit the crime of this case in collusion; the Defendants concealed the crime of this case or bear false debts; due to this, the victims have been punished for legal disputes for a long time with the Defendants; and the amount of damage still remains not recovered; most of the money acquired by the victims by realizing the Defendant A’s property is due to the victim’s efforts; and the amount voluntarily returned to the victim is not much much.

However, the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes and opposed to the Defendants, and Defendant B did not have a criminal record except for those subject to a fine once due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accidents, and there are some circumstances to consider Defendant B as favorable to the Defendants, considering all of the causes and degree of awareness of the instant crimes.

In full view of such circumstances, the Defendants’ character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and pleadings, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too weak or unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendants and the prosecutor's arguments are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is justified.