All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the court below (e., the sentencing of the defendant A: the imprisonment of six months; the imprisonment of six months; the imprisonment of six months; the probation of two years; the probation of 120 hours; and the community service order) is excessively unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition, considering these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its reasoning, rendered the aforementioned sentence to the Defendants on the grounds stated in its reasoning for sentencing. In light of the following: (a) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial in the lower court, including the Defendants’ confessions and reflects against the Defendants; (b) the amount of damage exceeds KRW 20 million; (c) the amount of damage reaches KRW 20 million; and (d) the victim was rarely recovered; and (e) the victim did not receive a letter of intent, the lower court’s determination of sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (d) it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that there were no particular changes in the conditions of sentencing in the trial.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Defendants’ conclusion is as follows.