All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing: 3 years of imprisonment; 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment) is unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, based on the discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate 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 light of the nature of sentencing, 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. Although the sentence of sentencing in the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that differs from the first instance court’s judgment by destroying the first instance judgment solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the appellate court’s opinion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court sentenced the Defendants to the above punishment with due regard to the sentencing as stated in its reasoning, and the Defendants, such as the victims of the crime committed, were given favorable consideration to the sentencing alleged in the appellate court by the victims of the crime, and the Defendants were subject to criminal punishment by larceny, larceny, etc., even before the instant punishment was imposed, and the Defendants were subject to repeated connection with each of the Defendant’s games during the period of criminal punishment.