2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument in sentencing.

The Defendants’ participation in the criminal conduct refers to the following circumstances: (a) the method of committing the criminal conduct causes in a systematic, planned, and intelligent and unspecified number of unspecified persons to inflict a discriminatory and serious damage to them; and (b) the overall social trust relationship has a serious adverse effect on the trust relationship; (c) the Defendants’ direct sharing of shares is to recruit one of the essential roles for the criminal conduct of Bosing; (d) the nature of the crime and the degree of the crime is not good; and (e) the victims’ damage was not recovered.

However, the Defendants recognized the instant crime and opposed to the fact that the Defendants did not have any record of punishment prior to the instant case, and that the profits acquired by the Defendants are high.

The fact that it is difficult to see is favorable to the Defendants.

In full view of such circumstances and other circumstances, the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, and all other factors pertaining to the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, it does not seem that the lower judgment’s punishment is too heavy or it is unfair because it is too low.

Therefore, the defendants and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

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