2. The fact that the Defendants are attempting to commit the instant crime, the amount of defraudation by the Defendants is not relatively large, Defendant B appears to have participated in the crime by Defendant A’s solicitation in relation to fraud against the victim F, and the fact that the Defendants deposited KRW 250,000 for the victim F in the first instance trial is favorable to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime again despite the fact that they had been subject to criminal punishment by committing a crime similar to the instant crime, even though they had been subject to criminal punishment, Defendant A committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, Defendant B committed the instant crime during the period of probation, and thus there is a need to punish the Defendants, and the victims have not been recovered from damage. In full view of all the sentencing conditions such as the Defendants’ age, sex behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. In accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the lower court’s sentence on April 4, 2015, “The second sentence of the criminal history” on February 19, 2015, is obvious that the Defendants’ appeal is a clerical error, and thus, it is corrected.