All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: three years of imprisonment; ten months of suspended sentence; two years of suspended sentence; and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The fact that the defendants recognized the crime and opposed to the judgment, Defendant B did not want the punishment of Defendant B by agreement with the victim T and R at the court below, and that there was no record of punishment for the same crime committed against Defendant A and that there was no record of the crime exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendants.

The crime of this case is that the defendants acquired money from the victims without the intent or ability to have their children employed by the victims for employment expenses. In light of the criminal law and the content of the crime, such as abusing the urgent deliberation to help the victims find employment of their children, the criminal liability is not less than 250,000 won, and the sum of the acquired money is about 90,000 won (the part of the crime of Defendant B acquired by the defendant as about KRW 30,000,000), and it seems that the mental suffering suffered by the victims was not caused by the victims. Defendant A did not make a serious effort for the repayment of damage and did not reach an agreement with the victims until the victims was reached, and most of the damaged amount was not recovered, Defendant B did not reach an agreement with the victims, Defendant B was punished twice by the same kind of crime, and Defendant B was disadvantageous to the defendants.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances, and other circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings, such as the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, even if considering all favorable circumstances to the Defendants, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is with merit.