All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The prosecutor's appeal brief summary of the prosecutor's appeal is unreasonable because the court below's each sentence (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months and 3 years of suspended execution, and community service order 160 hours) is too unfasible.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the sentencing materials unfavorable to the Defendants were not newly submitted in the first instance court. On the other hand, in the first instance court, Defendant A’s confession of the instant crime, against the mistake, and additionally submitted new sentencing materials favorable to the Defendants in the first instance court, such as repayment of a part of the amount to the victims.

Therefore, in full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too unhued and thus exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The prosecutor's argument that sentencing is unfair is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit. Thus, all of the appeals are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “1. Defendant A’s appellate court statement” is added to “the summary of evidence.”