The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (five years of suspended execution for three years of imprisonment, and fine of 3318 million won for three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, fine of 348 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the sentencing of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing specified in the process of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing judgment in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review, etc.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning of sentencing, declared each of the above punishments against the Defendants. Of the circumstances cited by Defendant A as the grounds for appeal, the Defendant A recognized all of his/her criminal acts and reflects against himself/herself, there is no record of criminal punishment, and the crime of this case is not for the purpose of evading tax, but for the actual gain of Defendant A has not been actually acquired. All of the circumstances cited by Defendant B as the grounds for appeal are considered in consideration of the lower judgment’s sentencing, and there is a history of criminal punishment against Defendant B.