All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The main point of the appeal by the Defendants is that the sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant D: fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when 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. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court judgment on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the opinion of the appellate court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In the case of the Defendant A, even though the above spouse was deemed to have contributed KRW 10 million to the said Defendant for the low-income bracket-gu low-income bracket at the first instance court, it appears that the above Defendant was unable to receive considerable amount of money due to each of the crimes in this case, and it was difficult to take into account that the Defendant’s spouse was able to escape money from the Defendant’s mobile phone by taking into account the reason and the fact that the above Defendant’s spouse was able to escape.

Defendant

D In the case of D, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new data on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial. In full view of the reasons for sentencing as stated by the lower court, the lower court’s sentence is.