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

1. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution, community service order 160 hours, Defendant B: fine 5 million won) against the Defendants on the summary of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds is deemed to be too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the sentencing materials unfavorable to the Defendants were not newly submitted in the first instance trial, while, on the contrary, new sentencing materials favorable to the Defendants were additionally submitted in the first instance trial, such as where the Defendants were in the first instance trial and agreed smoothly with the victims.

Therefore, in full view of the factors revealed in the proceedings of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too unhued and thus exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

The prosecutor's argument that sentencing is unfair is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition. However, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the court below’s ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure corrects “the receipt of “the receipt of delivery” as “the receipt of delivery.”