All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (the Defendant A: 2 years and six months of imprisonment; 4 years of probation; 1.1 billion won of fine; 1 year and six months of imprisonment; 2 years of probation; 50 million won of fine; 3 years of probation; 1 year and six months of imprisonment; 3 years of probation; 50 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The appellate court’s judgment is reasonable to respect the sentencing condition in comparison with the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from that of the first instance court on the sole ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no new circumstance or special change in circumstances that may be reflected in sentencing following the pronouncement of the lower judgment in the instant case.

Furthermore, considering comprehensively taking into account the sentencing factors set forth in the lower judgment, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, in light of the following circumstances.

(Article 70 of the Criminal Act provides that when the fine to be imposed is more than KRW 500 million but less than KRW 5 billion, the period of detention shall be determined for more than 500 days, but the judgment of the court of first instance sentenced Defendant B and C to a fine of KRW 550 million, which is less than 500,000. However, in the instant case where only the said Defendants appealed, the said Defendants may not extend the period of detention to the said Defendants under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. 3. The appeal by the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the court below's "application of statutes" in the judgment below is "1.1."