Defendant

B All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: one-year suspended sentence of imprisonment, two-year imprisonment, and one-year imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where 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, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the oral proceedings of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing of Defendant B is too heavy or the lower court’s sentencing of the Defendants is too low, thereby exceeding the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, each of the defendant B and prosecutor's arguments is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by Defendant B and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That among the judgment below, “I” of the Criminal Procedure Act 11 is a clerical error of “F”, and it is apparent that “Article 30,” “Article 347(1), and Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure,” following the “Article 347(1) and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act,” which is applicable to “Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, shall be corrected and added ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1).