All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. On August 28, 2019, the Defendant filed an appeal against the lower judgment on August 28, 2019, and did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within 20 days, which is the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, even if he/she received a written notification of the receipt of the trial records from this court on September 23, 2019, and the petition of appeal does not contain any grounds for appeal, and even if examining records, there is no ground for ex officio investigation.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by decision under Article 361-4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the remaining defendants' appeal is ruled, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed by decision as ordered in a lump sum.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 1 year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). There is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial. In full view of the following: (a) the reasons for sentencing as stated in the lower court’s reasoning, comprehensively taking into account the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, records of criminal acts; (b) the scale of the instant crime; (c) criminal proceeds acquired by the Defendants; and (d) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not heavy.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the grounds for appeal (as to the Defendant C), the lower court’s punishment (as to the Defendant, KRW 5 million) is too unfased and unreasonable.

B. The conditions of sentencing do not change compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.