All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants (the Defendant A: Imprisonment for 8 months, Defendant B: imprisonment for 6 months, suspended execution for 2 years, community service 135 hours) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing based on the statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court does not change the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and that the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the grounds that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

Even when considering the normal data submitted by the Health Team and the trial court as to the instant case, it is difficult to evaluate that there exists any change in the sentencing conditions for the Defendants compared to the original court. In light of the value of the goods provided to the instant crime of violating the Customs Act, the Defendants’ nature and character, environment, the background of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., in full view of the sentencing factors revealed in the pleadings of the instant case, including the fact that the Defendants had been subject to criminal punishment for the same kind of crime even before and during the investigation process, and that the Defendants again committed the instant crime of this case, even though they had had the record of criminal punishment for the same crime, and that they escaped during the investigation process, the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, the circumstances after the crime, etc.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit.