All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentencing of the lower judgment by Defendant B [the imprisonment of one year and six months, fines of 310,000,000 won per day, and fines of 310 days per day (1,00,000 won per day) at the time of default of the above fine] is too unreasonable for the sentencing of the lower judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower judgment by Defendant A [the imprisonment of two years, fines of 500,000,000 won per day, and fines of 500 days per day (1,000,000 won per day)] is too unreasonable for the sentencing of the lower judgment by Defendant A (the imprisonment of two years, and fines of 50,000,000 won per day), the detention in a workhouse, the suspension of execution of the above

(c)

The sentencing of the lower judgment against the Defendants by the public prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. The sentencing on the basis of a statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment that takes into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act within a reasonable and appropriate scope, on the basis of the statutory penalty.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing in the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction in our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the first instance sentencing judgment exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria in the course of the first instance sentencing trial.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the said sentence to the Defendants with due care in sentencing as indicated in its reasoning. The Defendants appear to be against all, and the amount of the actual proceeds acquired by the Defendants as the instant intermediary act is the value of the supply.