The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (unfair sentencing) that declared by the Defendants (defendant A: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months; imprisonment of 4 years and 1 year) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with respect to the Defendants) does not dispute the part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of the reasons.

1) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) It is unreasonable for the lower court to exempt the Defendants from both disclosure and notification orders and employment restriction orders.

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the Defendants and the prosecutor’s unfair assertion of sentencing, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). As stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined the punishment against the Defendants by comprehensively taking into account all favorable and unfavorable circumstances for the Defendants. The lower court recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court was determined appropriately in consideration of the important circumstances without any omission, and there is no change in circumstances that may reduce or increase the sentence of the lower court in the first instance court (the Defendant A was led to the first instance court’s confession of all the charges that were denied, but cannot be deemed to constitute a cause to reduce the sentence in light of evidence relations). In addition, even considering all of the factors of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the lower court’s punishment imposed on the Defendants is excessively excessive or beyond the reasonable scope given to the lower court.

It does not appear.

Ultimately, since it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the lower court, the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s above arguments are not accepted.

B. Regarding the prosecutor’s improper assertion of exemption from disclosure and notification orders and employment restriction orders.