The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) of the lower court (e.g., 10 months of imprisonment, and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The part against Defendant A regarding the crime of this case does not amount to KRW 160 million.

However, Defendant A recognized the facts of crime in the trial for the first time, divided and reflected his mistake, Defendant A repaid a considerable portion of the amount of damage, Defendant A withdrawn the complaint, Defendant A did not have the same kind of criminal records, etc. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, including the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court against Defendant A is too heavy.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is justified.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court on Defendant B’s part, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances to Defendant B, as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering all of the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and it does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the appeal by the defendant B is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit, and the appeal by the defendant A is with merit.