A. The defendants (e.g., defendants A, B, C, and D) who were sentenced by the court below to the defendants (e.g., imprisonment of one year and six months, one year and three years of suspended execution, and the remaining defendants: three million won of each fine) are too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. The defendants and the prosecutor's arguments are examined together.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, as indicated in its holding, determined the punishment by comprehensively taking into account all favorable and unfavorable circumstances to the Defendants, and recognized that the lower court’s punishment was determined appropriately by taking into account the important circumstances in full, and there is no change of circumstances that may reduce the punishment of the lower court in the trial.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, environment, motive, content and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that it is not recognized that the sentence of the lower court is too heavy, or that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion given to the lower court because it is too unfas

Therefore, we do not accept all the defendants and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing.

3. The appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.