All judgment of the court below against A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

seizure.

A. The Defendants of the first instance judgment asserted that the sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment and confiscation, one year and six months of imprisonment, and one year and six months of confiscation) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

B. The judgment of the court below of the second instance (Defendant A) is too unreasonable because the punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (Defendant A) is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

Defendant

A In filing each appeal against each judgment of the court below, each of the appeals cases was tried concurrently in the trial. As the facts constituting the crime of each judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and as seen below, one of the above facts constituting the crime must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be maintained as it is.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the argument of unfair sentencing by Defendant B and the prosecutor, requires respect for the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant B is too heavy or is fright off the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, each of the defendant B and prosecutor's arguments on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

4. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendant B and the prosecutor is dismissed as it is without merit, and all of them are dismissed as defendant A.