Defendant

A All appeals filed by the Defendants and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (the Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, the Defendant B: 7 months of suspended sentence, the Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months of suspended sentence, the Defendant C: 2 years of suspended sentence, the Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months of suspended sentence, the two years of suspended sentence, the Defendant E: 4 months of suspended sentence, and the one year of suspended sentence) is too un

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court with respect 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, the lower court did not have any special circumstance to the extent of changing the punishment as determined by the lower court for the first time in the instant case, and in full view of the various sentencing conditions revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too heavy or unbrupted, and the lower court’s sentencing against the rest of the Defendants is too narrow, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by Defendant A and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants is without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.