All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of one year and six months, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, confiscation, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendants by comprehensively taking account of the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances into account.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendants as the grounds for appeal (such as the fact that the Defendants are against themselves, the upper accomplices in the case of Defendant A exist, and the shares in the operation of the site of this case were transferred to other accomplices, and the Defendants did not lead the crime after they were transferred to other accomplices, and there was no same criminal record, and, in the case of Defendant B, did not share the leading role in the operation of the site of this case) seems to have already been taken into account

In addition, there is no new change in circumstances that could change the original court's punishment in the trial.

(1) In light of the size, period, and social harm, etc. of the crime indicated in the record, even if Defendant A paid the penalty surcharge to the above Defendant at the time of the trial, it cannot be considered as a change of circumstances that could change the sentence against the above Defendant. In addition, considering comprehensively the sentencing conditions of the Defendants, such as character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.