All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant B (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor's court below's each sentence (the defendant A: a fine of 5 million won, the defendant B's imprisonment with prison labor of 6 months) sentenced to the defendants is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant A, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the instant argument, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too unhued and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendant B and the prosecutor, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial, and Defendant B recognized the crime of this case as to the crime of this case as indicated in the crime No. 1, No. 7, and No. 14 in the attached Table of the lower judgment’s holding that the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B is too heavy or unhued, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion. In full view of all the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, it does not seem that the lower court’s sentencing with respect to Defendant B is too heavy or unhued.

3. Conclusion, Defendant B and the prosecutor.