All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court against the Defendants (e.g., Defendant A: imprisonment of April and Defendant B; imprisonment of five months) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendants in the trial room, and even considering the various sentencing factors in the instant pleadings, including various circumstances considered in the sentencing, the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

In particular, it is more true in view of the fact that Defendant B had already been punished for the same kind of crime before the instant crime was committed, without being aware of the fact that he was in the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, even though he was in the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, and there was a significant degree of criticism, and that the amount of defraudation by the Defendants by the instant crime was not a significant amount, and that there was no smooth agreement with the victim or no recovery of damage for

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

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

[However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with labor), among the "application of the law" of the judgment of the court below, shall be corrected to correct "Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with labor)" to "Article 347 (1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with labor with labor for the