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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants ( ① 2 years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for 2 years, ② Defendant B: fine of 1 million won) is too uneased.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) took into account the following favorable circumstances: (i) the Defendant A had an attitude to recognize and reflect all of the instant crimes; (ii) the Defendant A appears to have committed the instant crimes; (iii) the Defendant appears to have been given an opportunity to reflect one’s wrongness while living in custody for about three months; (iv) the Defendant’s age, occupation, sex, environment, motive and circumstances leading up to the instant crime, etc. were taken into account; (v) the Defendant’s life was not spread to the part of the stud room room room where other people reside; and (v) there was no personal injury; and (v) the Defendant had no record of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime; and (v) the Defendant B had an attitude to reflect by recognizing the instant crime; and (v) the Defendant B had committed the instant crime by leading the Defendant to the recognition as his chain; and (v) has determined a sentence by taking into account the following factors: the Defendants’ age, occupation, sex, environment, motive and circumstance leading up to the instant crime.

B. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

The grounds for the lower court’s improper sentencing, as alleged by the Prosecutor, appears to have been sufficiently considered in determining the Defendants’ punishment, and otherwise changed the above sentencing conditions.

There are no circumstances to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is too unfluent and unreasonable, as it was conducted within the reasonable scope of the discretion.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. The conclusion is as to the Defendants of the prosecutor.