All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the sentence (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, six months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B, and two years of suspended execution) declared by the court below, the defendants asserted that it is too unreasonable and unfair, and the prosecutor argues that the sentence against Defendant A is too unfasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Health belt, the lower court, in detail, explained the elements of sentencing against the Defendants in the context of sentencing.

There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment, since the sentencing data that can be newly considered in the trial is not submitted.

In full view of all the factors revealed in the records and arguments of this case, the sentencing of the Defendants is too heavy or it is difficult to view that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by putting the Defendants into a fluence.

The Defendants and the prosecutor’s arguments are without merit.

3. The appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.