The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant

B.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and fine of three million won for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on Defendant A’s assertion is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant: (a) the fact that the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the following factors: (b) the fact that there is no agreement with the victim C; and (c) the fact that the same kind of crime was committed during the period of suspension of execution as well as several times; (d) the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in the same kind of crime during the period of suspension of execution; (e) however, at the trial, all mistakes have been divided and reflected in the trial; (e) the victim agreed with the F and the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant; and (e) other reasons for the punishment of the Defendant, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive leading to the commission of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, are somewhat unreasonable. (ii) Therefore, the allegation of unfair

B. According to the record on Defendant B’s assertion, the lower court determined the sentence in consideration of the following: (i) the nature of the crime was inferior in light of the process and method of the crime; (ii) the number of offenses is divided and rebuttaled; (iii) the degree of participation is relatively minor; (iv) a long-term criminal record has been punished for the same kind of crime; (v) there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine; and (v) there is no new record of sentencing in the trial; and (v) there is no change in the conditions of the sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment; and (v) even considering the various sentencing reasons revealed during the pleading, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of the discretion.

3. Therefore, the argument on unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, Defendant A’s appeal is with merit, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is rendered again after pleading, and Defendant B’s appeal is rendered.