All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable, because each of the punishments (one million won of fine, 40 hours of order to complete a program, confiscation) imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unfasible.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has the unique area of the first instance court as 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). In light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants took the parts of the instant crime that caused the victim’s bucks to enter the body; (b) the Defendants’ commission of the instant crime is not good; (c) the Defendants’ failure to receive the bucks from the victim; (d) the Defendants are against the victim’s mistake; (b) the Defendants are primary offenders without any criminal power; (c) the victims raised an objection; (d) the Defendants appears to have deleted the video upon raising an objection; (e) the Defendants appears to have committed the instant crime with the victim; and (e) taking into account the favorable circumstances, the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too difficult to be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.