All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 1 and 6 months of imprisonment, forfeiture of evidence 1 to 6, and 1 year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has a unique area of the first instance trial regarding the

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in circumstances that may be considered in sentencing following the lower judgment. Examining the records and arguments of this case and the sentencing conditions of the lower court compared with the sentencing grounds of the lower judgment, the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable even in light of the circumstances in which the Defendants asserted as the grounds for appeal.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.