All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the prosecution against the Defendants on the violation of the Fair Transactions in Franchise Business Act, and convicted the Defendants of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

As to this, only the Defendants appealed against the conviction, and since the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal of prosecution, the Defendants and the prosecutor did not appeal the dismissal of prosecution was separated and confirmed as they are.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction among the judgment below.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence (7 million won by each fine) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

3. 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.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable on the grounds that there was no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing by the lower court. In full view of the following: Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, the scale of the instant construction contract, the motive, background, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and pleadings,

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.