Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, defendant B: imprisonment of eight months, suspended execution of two years, and confiscation) are too uneasible and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (unfair form of punishment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court of the relevant legal doctrine, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

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

Defendant

While considering the favorable circumstances that Defendant A recognized a crime, the lower court determined that Defendant A was sentenced to punishment against the said Defendant by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was not in the period of repeated crime by means of loan fraud under the Act on the Acceptance of Similar Crimes; (b) the Defendant committed a crime by being detained for the same kind of crime; and (c) the fact that the Act on the Receipt of Crimes was very poor.

The judgment below

Since then, there are no other new circumstances to consider sentencing, and even if considering various conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, the details, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the above sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or it does not seem to be unreasonable.

Therefore, each of the defendant A and prosecutor's arguments on this is without merit.

C. While considering the fact that the Criminal Proceeds Act was extremely poor, the lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant B by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant B, taking into account the fact that there was no past record of punishment heavier than the fine due to the age of majority, and that there was an agreement on the payment of money to the victim, etc.

The judgment below

Since then, there is no new circumstance that can be considered in sentencing.