All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) is that “each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year, a surcharge of 8,750,00 won, a surcharge of 2 years, a prison term of 10 years, a prison term of 320 hours, a community service work for 320 hours, a surcharge of 9,205,833 won, Defendant C: a prison term of 2 years, a prison term of 200 hours, a community service work for 20 hours, a surcharge of 1,813,146 won)” is too unreasonable.

“”

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and reasonable scope by taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and there is a unique area of the first deliberation in our criminal litigation law taking the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness.

In addition to these circumstances and the appellate court’s ex post facto in-depth nature, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing in the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by taking into account all favorable sentencing factors asserted by the Defendants, and not only did new sentencing materials that can change the sentence were added in the first instance court, but also did not add in the first instance court, but also did not change the sentencing materials that could harm transparency of foreign exchange transactions, disrupt foreign exchange order, and abuse them as a means for other crimes. In addition, the lower court’s determination that the sentence exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors: (a) the period and frequency of the instant crime; and (b) the period and frequency of the instant crime, in light of the fact that the liability for the crime was not less complicated; (c) the lower court’s determination exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

As such, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court.

Therefore, the sentencing of the Defendants is unfair.