A. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant A (the two-year imprisonment)’s imprisonment (the two-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant B (unfair punishment) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Since both the prosecutor and the Defendants assert that sentencing is unfair, they are judged as to the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants.

The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of directness, should respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In the instant case where there is no special circumstance or change in circumstances that may be considered for sentencing newly in the trial, the court below considered in determining the sentence against the Defendant (the Defendants committed the instant crime again during the repeated crime period even though all the Defendants were punished for the same kind of crime). Defendant A committed again the instant crime because it has not yet passed after the execution of the sentence was completed, and the number of times has not yet been committed again, and the reasons that the Defendants asserted in sentencing in the trial (in the case of Defendant A, they did not recover any damage) (in the case of Defendant A, they did not go through marriage to the lower court’s age. Defendant B had undergone an unforeseen growth process, and even in the case of Defendant B, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, details and circumstances of the crime, etc., and the circumstances after the crime are revealed, and thus, the lower court’s reasonable discretion does not seem to be harsh or unreasonable even if it is judged that the sentencing of Defendant A again exceeded the scope of discretion.