All prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. The appellate court’s sentence against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds for appeal (a fine of KRW 5 million is imposed on Defendant A, and a fine of KRW 2 million is imposed on Defendant B) is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition, in light of these circumstances and the ex post facto in-depth nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a judgment of the first instance on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the scope of the discretion and is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances against the Defendants, and all the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal, including the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime, and the fact that the crime of the instant crime is not good, are already reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court.

It is difficult to find out any change in special sentencing conditions that can change the sentence of the court below for the first time.

In full view of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the lower court and the arguments during the deliberation process, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, family relation, criminal record, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, profits gained from the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, balance of punishment among similar cases, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of its discretion.