All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A has no history of punishment for a fine other than a fine for a minor one time, and there is no history of the commission of the instant crime, and that there are circumstances that may be considered in light of the background leading up to the commission of the instant crime, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, and one additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. Considering that Defendant B’s criminal act committed in this case reflects his mistake in depth, and that the degree of participation in the crime is relatively minor and that the economic situation is not sufficiently sufficient, the sentence of the lower court (a prison term of eight months and a suspended execution of two years, a community service order of one hundred and sixty hours, and a collection) is too unreasonable.

2. The current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, has the unique area of the first instance court in relation to the determination of sentencing. As such, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in the 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, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have determined the sentence by sufficiently taking into account the above favorable circumstances alleged in the first instance court. In so doing, considering the following factors, including the fact that there is no special change in circumstances that the lower court should change the sentence after the sentence was rendered, the lower court did not recognize that the judgment of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, by taking into account all the factors indicated in the records of this case, such as the Defendants’ age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and subsequent circumstances.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.