All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) the sentencing of the lower court (the sentencing of the Defendants A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, 1 year of suspended execution, 2 years of suspended execution and 200 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

The sentencing of the court below by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

However, the crime of this case was committed in such a way that local governments interfere with the registration of disabled persons by making the false disabled persons smooth, and also opened the way to prevent the false disabled persons from taking advantage of the protection system for disabled persons.

However, Defendant A did not have a previous conviction except for a fine imposed on one occasion for a violation of the Food Sanitation Act, and Defendant B did not have any previous conviction, and Defendant B did not have any criminal record, and most of the registration certificates issued by persons with disabilities were voluntarily returned due to the crime of this case. The Defendants’ involvement in the crime of this case is considerably easy, and the degree of participation is relatively minor, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing in this case, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered as inappropriate, and the sentencing of the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in the application of the law of the court below, it is clear that Article 30 of the Criminal Code has been omitted in the corresponding legal provision concerning the obstruction of the performance of the official duties by fraudulent means as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it is corrected to add it ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the