All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendants' punishment ( ① 2 years of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection, ② Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 2 years and 2 years and additional collection, ③ Defendant C’s imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 2 years and additional collection, ④ Defendant D’s imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

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

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court appears to have determined punishment against the Defendants by comprehensively taking account of the following individual circumstances: (a) the degree and duration of participation in the crime; (b) the duration of participation in the crime; (c) the degree and degree of damage; (d) whether the victims have made efforts to reach an agreement or to reach an agreement with the victims; and (e) the amount of individual circumstances, such as criminal records.

The judgment below

There are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that will be considered newly after the sentence.

In order to punish money through the introduction of a person, the Defendants came to know that the Defendants were involved in the crime of Bosing, and even if there were circumstances where it was difficult for the Defendants to readily cease to commit the crime through surveillance and intimidation by senior officers, it is difficult to reflect the above circumstances in light of the fact that the Defendants voluntarily went to commit the crime with the clear awareness that they were the crime of Bosing, it is difficult to reflect them in the circumstances favorable to sentencing.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, occupation, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, equity with accomplices, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too heavy or it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too low.

3. Conclusion.