All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term, one year of short term, and one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants as elements for sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There is no particular change in the situation that is the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors stated in the arguments of this case including the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, character and conduct, frequency of crimes, the number of victims, the amount of fraud, the circumstances and motive leading to the crime of this case, the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and the agreement with the victims, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be said to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.