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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s respective punishment (Defendant H: two years of imprisonment; three years of probation; three years of community service order; 120 hours; Defendant K: imprisonment with prison labor for two years of probation; three years of probation; and 160 hours of community service order) against the Defendants is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that sentencing is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing is made within an appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment is within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In view of the fact that Defendant H’s damage in this case is large, the nature and circumstances of the crime, and the fact that Defendant H acquired at least KRW 86 million, the amount of the first instance judgment is disadvantageous to the pertinent Defendant H.

However, in light of the above legal principles, Defendant H paid 30 million won out of 86 million won he acquired at the original court, Defendant H paid 35 million won in the first instance court, and paid 35 million won in addition to the amount recovered by accomplices, including the amount recovered by accomplices, the amount of damage amount of KRW 913 billion out of the total damages amount of KRW 1 billion in the instant case was recovered, Defendant H was punished for the same kind of crime, or had no record of punishment heavier than a fine. In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant H is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unfluened.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of sentencing against the defendant H is justified.