All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as the mother of Defendant C and G actually lived with their husband and wife, and the above Defendant and G have been forming and maintaining an economic community for a long time as they have been living together with their father and father for a long time, special provisions among relatives under Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act should be applied.

However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment unfair (defendants) sentenced by the lower court (two years of suspended execution of six months of imprisonment, two years of community service, two years of suspended execution of eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution of eight months of community service, and 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act provides that a person who commits a crime on behalf of a relative or any of his/her cohabiting family members shall not be punished when such person commits a crime on behalf of the principal. A person in a de facto marital relationship does not constitute a relative under the Civil Act because he/she cannot be deemed a relative under the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4533, Dec. 12, 2003). According to the records, it is apparent that Defendant C is not a relative under G and the Civil Act. Thus, even if the mother of Defendant C at the time of the instant crime, even if he/she was in a de facto marital relationship with his/her mother at the time of the instant crime, the special provisions of Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act cannot be

Therefore, Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendants did not have any history of punishment heavier than each fine, and there was no history of punishment for the same crime, and Defendant C did not have any circumstance to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime.

However, the crime of this case is appropriate for the country by hindering the investigation by investigative agencies and making it difficult to find the criminal.