The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 5 million for the Defendants A, the fine of KRW 6 million for the Defendants B, the suspended execution of the sentence of two years, the community service order of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on Defendant A’s assertion, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court on the ground that no new data to be considered in the health room and the trial have been submitted.

In full view of the factors revealed in the records and arguments of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too unreasonable, and thus, does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope.

Defendant

A’s assertion is without merit.

B. As the judgment on Defendant B’s assertion was assessed against Defendant B as the main illness, it appears that Defendant B would be somewhat contingent to block the instant crime, there seems to have been no record of punishment for the same crime, the Defendants expressed their intent of not to punish each other immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, the lower court’s community service order would have difficulties in maintaining livelihood if it is executed as it is, and the lower court’s overall sentencing conditions indicated in the instant argument, such as Defendant B’s age, character, conduct and environment, are considered to be somewhat unreasonable.

Defendant

B's assertion is with merit.

3. As the appeal by Defendant B is well-grounded, the part concerning Defendant B among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal by Defendant A is again decided as follows after pleading. Since the appeal by Defendant A is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per

part of reversal.