All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the court below (e., the sentencing of the defendant A: the imprisonment of six months and the imprisonment of four months) is 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). In light of the following: (a) the lower court sentenced the Defendants to the aforementioned sentence on the grounds of sentencing based on its stated reasoning; (b) the Defendants led to the confession of and reflect against the Defendants; and (c) the victims did not want to punish the Defendants; and (d) the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial were already determined by the lower court; (b) the Defendants committed the Defendants with intent to cause a traffic accident; (c) the Defendants committed the crimes against several insurance companies, such as receiving money by means of claiming false insurance proceeds; and (d) the amount of damage exceeds KRW 70,000,000,000, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and (e) the sentencing conditions in the trial are particular.