2. The part of the crime of this case committed by Defendant A prior to May 31, 2014 among the crimes of this case is favorable to the Defendants, such as the following: (a) the violation of the Trademark Act in the first instance judgment where the judgment became final and conclusive and the relation of concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; (b) there is a family member to support; (c) Defendant B has participated in part of the crime in accordance with Defendant A’s proposal; and (d) Defendant B has been partly involved in the crime of this case; (b) profits from the crime of this case are deemed not so significant; and (c) there is no record of punishment other than punishment for a minor two-time fine.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed in a systematic and planned manner from May 9, 2013 to September 5, 2014, when Defendant A was investigated and tried for the same kind of crime. In light of the method, period, and scale of the crime, the liability for the crime is heavy; Defendant A was provided with personal information of 26,719 in the process without consent of the owner of the information; Defendant B also participated in the crime of violation of the Trademark Act by Defendant A from May 9, 2013 to March 26, 2014; and Defendant B did not know the duration or scale of participation.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, including the circumstances and motive behind the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age, character and conduct of the Defendants, and the environment, etc., the first instance court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.