All appeals by the Defendants and prosecutor against Defendants B and C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants C and the defense counsel explicitly withdrawn misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the first trial date.

The sentence sentenced to the Defendants (Defendant A: four years of imprisonment; four years of suspended sentence to three years of imprisonment; three years of suspended sentence to Defendant C; four years of suspended sentence to three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor (Defendant B and C)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B and C is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In view of the unique area of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of court priority and directism that is adopted by our criminal litigation law on the premise of determination, and the ex post facto core nature of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process and the sentencing guidelines, etc.

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). (b) The circumstance favorable to the Defendant is that: (a) the Defendant’s judgment against the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, which led L to L; (b) the Defendant plans to commit the instant crime; (c) the Defendant appears to have participated depending on L’s oil; (d) the victims’ actual losses are smaller than the amount of damage indicated in the instant crime; (e) the Defendant did not have any personal profit accrued from the instant crime; and (e) there was no history of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime.

However, this case.