All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. As to the summary of the grounds for appeal (defendant A, B, and Prosecutor), the lower court’s sentence (two years of suspended sentence for one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence for Defendant B, and two years of suspended sentence for eight months of imprisonment), the Defendants asserted that the Defendants were too poor and unfair, while the prosecutor appealeded that it was too unreasonable and unfair.

2. According to the records on the determination of Defendant C and D’s appeal, the Defendants filed each appeal against the lower judgment on December 28, 2016, and received each notice of receipt of the record of trial from the lower court on January 16, 2017, but failed to submit the statement of reasons for appeal within 20 days, which is the period for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal prescribed in Article 361-3(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though they received each notice of receipt of the record of trial from the lower court, and even if the petition of appeal does not contain any reasons for ex officio investigation even if examining the records, the Defendants’ appeal is not accompanied by law.

3. Defendant A, B, and the prosecutor’s appeal reasons are not only the amount obtained by deception through fraud but also agreed with the victims. Defendant A was the first offender with no record of crime, and Defendant B has no record of punishment in excess of the fine, and there is no record of criminal punishment in fraud. Meanwhile, Defendant A, who was equipped with a camera and telecommunications equipment, led the gambling of fraud, which is not good, and Defendant B has a record of punishment for gambling, as it is not good that the crime was committed by taking part in the fraud of Defendant A, and Defendant B has two times the record of punishment for gambling.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the age, sex, environment, motive, method, and consequence, etc. of the Defendants as shown in records and pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion, and is not recognized to have reached the extent of being too heavy or unreasonable because it is too heavy.

Therefore, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s argument is rejected.

4. The conclusion is that Defendant C and D’s appeal is unlawful and therefore, Article 361-4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.