All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants is too unreasonable. Each punishment of the lower court (the Defendant A: imprisonment of one and half years; the imprisonment of one year and six months; the imprisonment of one year; the imprisonment of three years; and the social service of 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. It is true that there is a favorable sentencing condition for the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants were found to be in violation of the crime of this case, and the victim J expressed in the original trial the intent not to be punished against Defendant B (the victim I expressed the victim I expressed his intention to not be punished against Defendant B, but the withdrawal was made thereafter) and that there was no record of being punished more than the suspension of qualification against Defendant A.

However, in light of the fact that the defendants had been sentenced to a 1-year suspended sentence in the Seoul Southern District Court on September 3, 2009, even though they had been sentenced to a 1-year suspended sentence in August 2009 due to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Receipt of Goods, the crime of this case is not good in light of the following: (a) the defendants deceptiond victims, and the amount of fraud was up to a total of KRW 150 million; and (b) Defendant A was punished twice by fraud; and (c) Defendant B

In addition, up to the trial, the victims of fraud have not been actually recovered from actual damage, and the circumstances after the crime are deemed not to be good after considering the fact that Defendant A did not restore the damaged mountainous district to its original state, and other various circumstances, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s respective punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants and their defense counsel’s allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are no grounds for appeal.