All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too unfasible to the Defendants (Defendant A: fine of 8 million won; fine of 4 million won for Defendant B; fine of 8 million won for Defendant C; imprisonment of 8 months for suspended execution; two years for suspended execution).

2. The Defendants jointly committed the instant crime while being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a period of ten months by obstruction of the execution of deceptive duties at the Ulsan District Court on June 19, 2015, in particular, Defendant C committed the instant crime while being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years by obstruction of the execution of deceptive duties, in light of the method and content of the crime, the degree of damage inflicted on the victims, etc.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants are divided into all their mistakes, and the victims do not want to be punished by the Defendants; (b) Defendant B and C did not have any past criminal record; and (c) there was no circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the court below was rendered; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the trial process, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, conduct, environment, home environment, and circumstances leading to the instant crime; and (b) the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair as it is too unaffortuous. Therefore, we cannot accept the prosecutor’s unfair claims for sentencing against the Defendants.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (On the other hand, the judgment of the court below is a clerical error in the statement of “2:00 on August 9, 2015” as of August 19, 2015, i.e., “2:00 on August 17, 2015.” Thus, it is obvious that the appeal against the Defendants is a clerical error in the statement of “Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.”