All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the court below sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, Defendant D: imprisonment of three years and confiscation, Defendant E: imprisonment of three years and two years and two months and confiscation) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

(2) The lower court determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by fully taking into account all the circumstances regarding the sentencing of the Defendants, and considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendants as the grounds for appeal, Defendant E did not have any fact of communicating with the victim during the course of committing the crime 2019Dadan767, which was decided by the lower court, and Defendant A did not directly commit the act of deception as stated in each of the facts charged, since Defendant A committed the crime 2019 Godan641, which was decided by the lower court, with the organizational members affiliated with another team. Therefore, the said Defendants did not directly commit the act of deception as stated in this part of the facts charged.