A. The lower court’s respective sentences against the Defendants (unfair sentencing) (defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and confiscation, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months) are too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s respective sentences against the Defendants are too uneasible and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to be strictly punished by the Defendants when considering the social danger, harm, etc. caused by the crime of this case against many and unspecified persons. It is acknowledged that the total amount of damage was not much, and damage was not recovered in full. Meanwhile, the Defendants recognized the crime of this case and reflects the depth of the Defendants, the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime is relatively minor, and the profits actually acquired appear to be small, and the Defendants agreed with the victimJ at the lower court and the first instance court. Defendant A deposited two million won each for victims E and I at the lower court, and in light of other various circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, sex and environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion on each of the Defendants cannot be deemed to be unfair because each of the punishment of the Defendants is too heavy or unfilled.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the Defendants and the public prosecutor is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.