All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a two-month imprisonment) of the lower court (e.g., a six-month imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants recognized each of the instant offenses, and there was no criminal conviction exceeding the fine imposed by Defendant A, and Defendant B did not have any criminal conviction exceeding the fine in addition to the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in 1987.

On the other hand, the Defendants had the power of suspending the transfer of the means of access, and the number of transferred means of access (Defendant A13 times and Defendant B7 times) is large, and the means of access can be used for various crimes. Therefore, there is a need to punish the transfer of the means of access more heavily. In fact, the means of access leased by the Defendants was used for illegal gambling, etc., and the defendants did not have considerable profits, etc

In addition, the lower court did not change the sentencing conditions that may be newly considered in this court compared to the lower court, comprehensively taking into account the above factors of sentencing.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. 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.