All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The sentencing of Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (Defendant B: a fine of KRW 7 million) against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. We examine the Defendant A’s assertion and the Prosecutor’s assertion on the above Defendant.

In light of the amount and frequency of propool sold by the Defendant, and the fact of selling goods in lieu of cash, etc., the crime is not good in light of the fact that the Defendant was led to the instant crime, while there are circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s failure to commit the instant crime. On the other hand, the Defendant’s return to J of KRW 30 million and well-known trademark, and the Defendant did not have the same criminal record, there are extenuating circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character, character, environment, details and motive of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing and sentencing as indicated in the instant pleadings and records, it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is reasonable, and that it is unreasonable or unreasonable because it is too heavy.

Therefore, the defendant and prosecutor's argument are without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor’s assertion on Defendant B, the fact that Defendant A received a well-known trademark store in return for the sale of propool from the above Defendant and shared sales profits, etc. is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the defendant's intention not to commit such a crime again, and the defendant at the time served as a part of the defendant's request, which was a relationship with the person in question, and the degree of his participation is minor, and the profits acquired therefrom are also small.