All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (one-year imprisonment, 9, 100 square meters) is too heavy or too harsh (the Defendant).

2. In a case where there is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). A written submission by the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and actively cooperated with the investigation of the relevant case by the prosecutor, and that the Defendant’s family members and relatives appear to clearly have a relationship with the Defendant, such as where the Defendant’s family members and relatives are leading the Defendant and wanting to support the Defendant.

However, the defendant had already been sentenced to punishment for the same kind of crime, and committed each of the crimes of this case without being able to do so during the period of repeated crime due to the same type of crime, and the fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed in an organized manner beyond the border, and the transaction amount of the approaching media transferred as a result of this case’s crime exceeds several hundred and sixty billion won, and that the defendant received criminal proceeds each of the KRW 9.6 million through KRW 12 million including the period of the crime of this case.

The court below appears to have determined the sentence of the court below in light of all the above circumstances, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions different from those of the court below in the first instance.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or is too heavy and unreasonable.

All of the arguments that the sentencing of the defendant and the prosecutor are unfair are dismissed.

3. Conclusion