All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The lower court’s sentencing of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) against Defendant B (a prison term of two years and six months, a suspended sentence of three years, a community service order of 320 hours, an order to attend drug treatment for 40 hours, and an order to collect additional collection) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) against Defendant A (a prison term of three years, a suspended sentence of four years, a community service order of 240 hours, an order to attend a lecture for 40 hours, and an additional collection) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Based on the statutory penalty, the relevant legal principles have a unique area of deliberation in our criminal litigation law that takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and reasonable scope.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence without any difference between the first instance court and the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the appellate court on the sole ground that the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) The judgment of the appellate court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal on the grounds that the sentencing in the first instance court sentenced the above sentence to Defendant B, on the grounds of its stated reasoning.