[Defendant A] The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the prosecutor’s Defendants (i.e., Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, ii. Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine both Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s respective unfair claims for sentencing against Defendant A (Defendant A and Prosecutor) and the Defendant.

Each of the crimes of this case is disadvantageous to the fact that the defendant committed a crime against the aged older person who is vulnerable to the crime in collusion with B, and that the liability for the crime is not minor, and that the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment (two times of fines, one-time suspension of execution of imprisonment, and three times of punishment) due to the same crime on six occasions, etc.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, the victim E returned the amount of damage to the victim D, the victim H returned and agreed in the investigation process, and the amount of damage is not very significant, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is somewhat unreasonable.

The defendant's unfair argument in sentencing is accepted, and the prosecutor's improper argument in sentencing is not accepted.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment against Defendant B, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As seen earlier, in light of the victim of the instant crime and the method of the commission of the crime, etc., the relevant crime is not adequate; the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime; and the damage therefrom.