Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Unfair sentencing; and

A. Regarding Defendant A, the lower court’s punishment (ten months of imprisonment) against Defendant A, Defendant A asserts that it is too unreasonable for Defendant A to be too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unjust.

B. As to each sentence of the lower court against Defendant B and C (Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant C: a fine of KRW 2 million), the prosecutor asserts that the prosecution is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases 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, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). As stated in the grounds for sentencing, the lower court determined each type of punishment by fully taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the Defendants’ respective sentencing, as well as comprehensively taking into account the records of the instant case and the respective sentencing conditions against the Defendants expressed in the trial process, the lower court’s respective sentences against the Defendants do not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

On the other hand, although there is a change in the circumstance that Defendant A recognized the crime of this case which was denied by the court below for the first time in the trial, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the method of criminal act, and the game room of this case.