All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing. As such, in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials are not submitted in the trial. Defendant A is one time of the same criminal act, Defendant B has a history of having been sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, one time of fine, one time of the suspension of the suspension of the indictment, and one time of the suspension of the indictment. In full view of the various sentencing conditions revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.