All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the grounds of appeal.

2. It is recognized that the Defendants’ mistake is divided, that Defendant A actively cooperatedd in the investigation, and that Defendant A’s crime constitutes perjury for which judgment became final and constitutes concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the equity should be taken into account when judgment is rendered simultaneously in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes.

However, there is no good character of the crime of this case; Defendant A was sentenced to suspension of indictment for the same crime; Defendant B committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of being sentenced to suspension of indictment for the same crime; Defendant A committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime; Defendant A committed the crime of this case; Defendant A committed the crime of this case; Defendant A committed the crime of this case; Defendants sold or arranged for sale and purchase of phiphones; Defendant’s age, sex and environment; motive, means, means and consequence of the crime; and Defendant’s conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too excessive to the court below’s punishment; thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since it is evident that the Defendants’ appeal was omitted “1. Concurrent treatment, Defendant A: Article 37 of the Criminal Act, but Article 39(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act,” the judgment of the court below is corrected as adding it pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.