All appeals filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants: The sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment for Defendant A and three years of suspended sentence for Defendant B) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

Unless there exist such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the first instance sentencing determination (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court rendered the above sentence to the Defendants with due regard to the sentencing stated in its reasoning. The circumstances favorable or unfavorable to the sentencing asserted by the Defendants and the public prosecutor in the trial are already considered in the lower court’s determination of the punishment, and the first instance sentencing determination was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

There is no change in circumstances in sentencing conditions even when considering the circumstances partially deposited by the Defendants in the trial.

It is difficult to see that the sentencing of the lower court is reasonable to be respected.

Therefore, the defendants and the prosecutor's argument of sentencing is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendants and the Prosecutor are the Defendants.