All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (for Defendant A, four months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, and three million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. It is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not vary with the first instance court on the sole ground that the difference between the opinion of the appellate court and the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Since new sentencing data are not submitted in the trial, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original court, and when comprehensively considering all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of the instant case, the sentencing of the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and so the sentencing of the Defendants exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

3. The prosecutor’s appeal of conclusion is without merit and is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is apparent that each of the “Article 268 of the Criminal Procedure Act” in the “Article 268 of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning criminal facts” is omitted, it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.