B, C’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal are all dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection of 27 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, additional collection of 45 million won) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendants (the sentence imposed by the defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended sentence, 1.3 million won of additional collection, 1.3 million won of collection, 2, and 3) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court sentenced the Defendants to the above punishment.

Defendant

B, C and prosecutor already moved out in the proceedings of the lower court’s argument as an element of sentencing, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines and matters that are the conditions of sentencing after the decision of the lower court was rendered.

In addition to the above legal principles.