2. The crime of this case was committed with the intent of aiding and abetting the Defendants to obtain economic compensation for the crime of aiding and abetting another person’s privacy by photographing money, and the nature of the crime is bad. The photograph taken by the Defendants is used as a main means for the principal offender’s crime, the frequency of the crimes is not considerable, and the crime was committed systematically and systematically.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions as indicated in the records and theories of this case, including the fact that the Defendants fully acknowledged the crime of this case, the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting the Defendants was committed, and the damage was not realized, the Defendants participated in the crime of this case, and Defendant G was the primary offender, and the Defendants G took into account the following factors: the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants was proper, and the sentencing judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit, since the court below's punishment is too unfasible.

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