All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that each of the lower courts’ respective punishments (two years and six months of imprisonment; and two years of imprisonment) is too heavy or unbrupted.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A recognized the instant crime against Defendant A, the lower court agreed with six victims at the lower court, and further agreed with two victims in the first instance trial, and appears to have resulted in the instant crime in an economic difficult situation, etc. (Defendant A asserts that the self-denunciation should be mitigated because he/she actually surrenders himself/herself by clarifying his/her veterinarian in telephone conversations with a police officer on April 17, 2017, which was before he/she was arrested by an investigative agency.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the contents of telephone communications with police officers alone were self-recovered, and even if Defendant A expressed that he was self-recovered as alleged.

Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a self-denunciation may reduce the sentence at will by the court (see, e.g., Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act). However, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance, such as the following: (a) the victims, who have a weak point of driving without a license, share a systematic and planned role in the whole country by taking part in the traffic accident and demanding a mutual agreement payment from 16 victims; (b) the crime is very poor; (c) the victim is a majority and the amount of damage is the maximum amount; and (d) the records of having been punished three times for the same kind of crime (i.e., punishment, suspension of execution, and punishment) are committed.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing indicated in the records of this case, including Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence, etc., even considering that Defendant A reached an additional agreement with some victims at the trial, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable due to the fact that Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable, and it is difficult to view it as unfair because it is too low.

Therefore, the defendant A and the prosecutor.