A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment for Defendant A, and one year of imprisonment for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court’s determination of the allegation of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, including the circumstances properly explained in the grounds for the sentencing, takes into account the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

3. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant B’s grounds of sentencing, as well as the circumstances properly explained in its sentencing, takes into account the sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant argument, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the circumstance that there is no change in sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment on the grounds that the new sentencing data was not submitted in the first instance trial, cannot be said to be too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant B and Prosecutor’s above assertion are without merit.

4. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendants and the appeal by the prosecutor against the defendant B is without merit, all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the court below’s “application of the statutes” of the judgment below is clear that “1. Discretionary mitigation” and “Defendant B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act” are omitted, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.