All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., the sentencing of the court below (e., the sentencing of the defendant A; 10 months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution in October; and 240 hours of probation and community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, with a discretionary determination that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on which our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness, has the unique area of the first instance court

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, and to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, even though the sentence of the first instance court is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court,

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, sentenced the Defendants to the aforementioned sentence on the grounds of sentencing, and based on the absence of particular criminal power to the Defendants, etc., the circumstances favorable to the sentencing alleged in the trial at the trial of the lower court have already been determined by the lower court, and are sufficiently considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the sentencing of the Defendants, such as that the Defendants have no specific criminal power, etc.; however, the Defendants have led to a confession and reflect on the crime at the trial of the lower court; however, the amount of damage exceeds KRW 70 million, the amount of damage was not recovered; most damage was not recovered; and the judgment of the lower court with respect to Defendant B was pronounced a suspended sentence. In light of the above circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.