All appeals filed against B, D, and Prosecutor C, and D are dismissed.

A. Determination of Defendant B and D (an administrative fine of KRW 4 million, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor of KRW 1 year and 2 months, confiscation, and collection of penalty) is unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) Defendant C (two years of suspended sentence in October and one hundred and twenty hours of community service work) and D’s sentence is unfunched and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to determine the sentencing of Defendant B cannot be deemed to have higher punishment than the recommended range of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines set out in the annexed sentencing guidelines (from April to October). In full view of the course and degree of participation, and the gains acquired, the sentence was set.

The court below did not err in selecting and applying sentencing factors, and there is no change in sentencing factors in the appellate court.

Even if this court re-examines the sentencing factors and other factors set forth in the sentencing guidelines, the amount of the original sentence against Defendant B is inappropriate.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant C’s sentencing by comprehensively taking account of the details and degree of participation, acquired gains, criminal records of the same kind, and the case of equity and judgment of the Defendant C at the same time with the offense of violation of the Game Industry Promotion

The court below did not err in selecting and applying the elements of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

The determination of the original judgment cannot be respected.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The sentencing criteria do not apply to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. However, even if this court examines sentencing factors and other factors of sentencing, it does not seem that the amount of the original sentence against Defendant C is unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

C. The lower court determined the Defendant D’s sentencing on the grounds that the sentence was chosen within the scope of recommended sentences (one to five years of imprisonment) according to the attached sentencing guidelines. The degree of participation and role in the sentence, the size of exchange, the period of the same repeated crime, and A.