All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The respective sentences of the lower court against the Defendants (limited to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 180 hours of additional collection, 1,221,60 won) are too unreasonable.

Judgment

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court 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 solely on the ground that the sentencing of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the scope of discretion.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of

The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendants' appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the court below, Article 10 (1) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment is apparent that the "Article 48 (1) 2 and 48 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act" is a clerical error. Thus, the correction is made ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.

.