2. The Defendants’ recognition of and reflects on the crime; the Defendants agreed with the victim and the lower court; the Defendants paid a large amount of damages to the trial; Defendant A raises young children alone; Defendant B does not have a good health condition; and Defendant B must take into account equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive.

However, there are many circumstances unfavorable to the sentencing of the Defendants, such as not only the Defendants acquired money on the ground of their status as a reporter, but also the fact that the crime of this case was committed in order to escape a serious punishment for the existing crimes, and that the nature of such crime is very poor, that the amount of fraud is not much significant, and that Defendant A repeatedly committed the crime of fraud or defense violation, and that the crime of this case was committed again during the period of repeated crime.

Considering the following factors: (a) various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendants’ age, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the lower court’s application of the special mitigated person in the calculation of sentencing guidelines to determine the punishment within the scope of the mitigated range of the recommended sentence, it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.