A. The Defendants’ sentence (10 months of imprisonment, 4 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both claims of the judgment.

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

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court determined a sentence against the Defendant by taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ motive and background of the crime, and the method of the commission of the crime, and the fact that Defendant A committed each of the instant crimes even during the period of repeated crime, etc., under the unfavorable circumstances, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendants recognized all of the crimes; and (b) the equity in the case of Defendant B’s fraud by using computers, etc. as indicated in the judgment that became final and conclusive in the case of Defendant B.

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the lower court. In addition, considering the factors revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive for the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the number of the crimes by the Defendant, the degree of involvement in the amount of damage, etc., and the final sentence against the accomplices in a separate case, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unfased so far as

Therefore, both parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

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, since all of the appeals by the Defendants and the public prosecutor are without merit.