All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendants were aware of all the facts of each of the instant crimes and are against the depth of the mistake. The Defendants’ perjury did not affect the outcome of the relevant criminal trial, and other factors such as Defendant A’s criminal records and health conditions are equally taken into account, each of the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court in relation to the determination of sentencing. As such, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in the case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new data on sentencing in the trial. In addition, even if the prosecutor sought a fine of five million won against the Defendants, the lower court appears to have partially reduced punishment considering the above circumstances of the Defendants’ assertion, including the fact that it appears that the lower court has partially reduced punishment by taking into account the following two factors, such as the Defendants’ age, character, environment, motive of crime, motive of crime, and circumstances after crime, etc., the lower court’s determination of sentencing is too excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.