2. The lower court sentenced the above punishment by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendants’ respective crimes of this case, including the fact that the crime of Bosing was not eradicated even through continuous public relations, the method of the crime was significantly developing, and the social harm is serious, the total amount of damage was considerably high, and the damage was not recovered, etc., the economic benefits directly acquired by the Defendants for each of the crimes of this case can be deemed as not much high, and Defendant D voluntarily discontinued the crime, and the fact that the Defendants recognized the Defendants’ mistake as substitute.

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, the court below takes into account the fact that most of the damages have not been recovered from the circumstances.

In full view of the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of the crime, degree of participation in the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime and circumstances after the crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, each sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be appropriate, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that each sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendants’ assertion is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.