All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered is unreasonable because each of the punishments (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the appellate court’s view (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015) by destroying the judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion, but is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23,

The circumstances alleged by the Defendants, such as the confession of the instant crime and the fact that the extent of the Defendants’ participation in the instant crime is minor, are not much much of the practical benefits earned by the Defendants, are considered to have been sufficiently taken into account when determining the punishment in the lower court. The lower court’s sentencing judgment was too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

shall not be appointed by a person.

Therefore, all defendants' arguments are not accepted.

3. In conclusion, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the Defendants is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.