2. Determination

A. Although it is recognized that Defendant A's unfair argument of sentencing both recognizes the criminal facts, and there is no record of punishment for the same crime, the crime of this case is highly poor in light of the contents of the crime, such as the use of a remittance confirmation certificate and deposit slip in order to acquire and conceal money by actively deceiving victims, and in order to do so, the crime of this case is highly poor in light of the contents of the crime, such as the use of a remittance certificate and deposit slip, the total sum of the amount of the victims and the victim did not have been recovered properly, and the victim did not agree with victims, the crime of this case seems to have suffered considerable heart pain due to the Defendant's crime, and the group members and parents who are minors and parents are expected to suffer considerable heart pain. In full view of all other circumstances, the court below's punishment is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although it is recognized that Defendant B’s unfair argument of sentencing on the crime is criminal facts, there is no history of punishment for the same crime and there is no criminal record exceeding the fine, considering the content of the crime, the crime is not good, the majority of the victims and the sum of the amount of damage is not recovered, the damage was not agreed with the victims, and the Defendant’s crime appears to have suffered considerable cardiopulmonary pain, and the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are taken into account, the lower court’s punishment is too excessive.