Of them, the part on Defendant B (excluding the part on a compensation order) shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

A. Defendant B’s inappropriate sentencing (the lower court’s sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and April)

(b) Each unfair sentencing sentence (as against the accused, the lower court’s sentence): Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and April (Defendant B); imprisonment for one year and four months; suspended execution for two years; community service work hours for 120 hours (Defendant A)

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant A, the appellate court ought to respect the judgment of sentencing of the first instance court in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. 2) The lower court, under the unfavorable circumstances, under the circumstances that the Defendant A opened a set unreasonably in the state of lack of financial capacity and opened the set and supplied the goods by deceiving many victims, and immediately closing the business. Notwithstanding the Defendant A’s breach of trust, the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances, and circumstances after executing the auction procedure for corporeal movables after executing the seizure of the security; and (b) the Defendant was paid a normal dividend by carrying out the auction procedure for corporeal movables; and (c) the Defendant did not have any past criminal record.

3) The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the prosecutor appear to be the circumstances that the court below had already taken into account in determining the punishment against the above defendant, there are no circumstances to deem that the above conditions of sentencing have changed, and considering the above conditions of sentencing, the court below’s punishment is deemed reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion (In addition, the defendant A shows an attitude against the defendant A by recognizing all the crimes of this case in the trial, and agreed with some victims.

The prosecutor’s above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing against the above defendant B and the prosecutor