2. The judgment of the court below is acknowledged to be the first offender, but Defendant A established and operated the instant marina business for about four months as the owner of the instant marina business, and even if there were the previous records of punishment, he again committed the instant crime. The court below seems to have determined the punishment in consideration of the Defendants’ claims, and the sentencing of the Defendants is not deemed unfair even in light of the equity among the cases punished by the same crime. In addition, in full view of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, the sentencing of the court below is deemed to be appropriate, and it does not seem to be unfair.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since all of the appeals of this case are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.