All appeals filed by A and B and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s respective sentences against Defendant A, B, and B (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) are too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence against the Defendants to the prosecutor (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, Defendant B: imprisonment for 4 months, and Defendant C: fine of 3 million won) is deemed unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendants to each of the above punishment.

The circumstances cited by the Defendants and the Prosecutor on the grounds of appeal are already factors that have sufficiently taken into account while determining the punishment in the original trial. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing on the grounds that there is no reason to newly consider in the appellate trial.

Specifically, Defendant B and C recognized their errors from the beginning, and Defendant A also recognized their errors for the first time and reflects their errors.

All the Defendants agree with each victim of each crime, and each victim does not wish to punish the Defendants.