The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant C and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. A fine of 10,00,000 won, Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 1 and 6 months of imprisonment and 3 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order, Defendant B and 2 years of probation, 1 year of imprisonment and 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order, Defendant C and 2 years of probation, 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of probation, Defendant D: 4 months of imprisonment and 2 years of probation) are too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant A and B of the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the arguments of Defendant A, B, and the Prosecutor together.

If there is no change in the 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 it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment because new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the reasons for sentencing revealed during the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too heavy or unhued, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Defendant

The argument that the sentencing of A, B and the prosecutor is unfair is without merit.

B. The crime of this case committed by Defendant C and D was committed by the Defendants by lending the name of the school meal service company A and B to the school meal service company during the process of selecting the school meal service company, and the Defendants took part in the duplicate bidding crime of A and B, and the crime was committed with heavy liability in light of the substance of the crime, and the circumstances unfavorable to

However, the Defendants’ confession to commit the instant crime and reflect in depth the mistake; the Defendants’ contribution to the name of the business entity operated by the Defendants to A and B is relatively minor; the Defendants did not obtain any particular benefit from the instant crime; and the conditions of sentencing indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, and environment.