All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because each of the lower court’s sentences (the fine of KRW 5 million is imposed on the Defendants A, Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, suspended execution for two years, and community service order for 120 hours) against the Defendants is too unfasible.

2. In a case where 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, it is reasonable to respect it.

(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 to the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data in the trial, and the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor on the grounds of unfair sentencing are deemed to have already been reflected in the grounds for sentencing by the lower court. In full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to each of the instant crimes, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the application of the laws and regulations in the holding of the court below shall be corrected to Article 4(1) and Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, “Article 49(4)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, respectively,” as stated in Article 2 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.