2. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Defendant B’s crime is against the crime; (b) the Defendants were deemed to have committed the crime of this case intentionally without fault; (c) the Defendants partially recovered from damage by paying a part of the money or transferring the property to the victim; (d) Defendant A, who had no record of the crime except that the Defendants received a fine twice; and (c) Defendant A, prior to his liability, denies the continuous crime; (d) the extent of damage from the instant crime was small; and (e) the Defendants did not agree with the victim even until now; and (e) the sentence was imposed by comprehensively taking into account the motive, means and consequence of the crime; (e) the circumstances after the crime; (e) the Defendants’ age, behaviors, intelligence, and environment; and (e) the sentencing conditions and sentencing guidelines, including the motive and consequence; and

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

It is recognized that prosecutor's assertion on the ground of appeal that the amount of damage is large and most of the damage has not been recovered.

In addition, the victims pointed out that they did not endeavor to recover damage any longer, and want to punish the victims. However, since these circumstances have already been considered in the original trial, the sentencing conditions in the previous trial have been significantly changed.

It is difficult to see it.

In light of the fact that the injured party filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, which is expected to be relieved of damage through the future civil procedure, and the fact that the sentencing amount in the lower court’s judgment is too low and unreasonable, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is as to the Defendants of the prosecutor.