All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal’s previous convictions, etc., the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of three million won, Defendant B: a fine of seven million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B had a record of having been punished several times for the same crime, and the crime of this case also committed during the period of the same suspension of execution is disadvantageous to Defendant B.

On the other hand, the fact that Defendant B recognized the crime and reflected, maintained his livelihood with singing business, and supported children suffering from intellectual disorder due to traffic accident after the aftermath of traffic accident. The fact that the economic benefits acquired from the crime of this case did not exist is favorable to Defendant B.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court shall respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). In the instant case where no change exists in sentencing conditions following the judgment of the lower court, considering the aforementioned circumstances, comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s sentence against Defendant B is unreasonable as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The fact that Defendant A had been punished twice for the same crime is disadvantageous to Defendant A.

On the other hand, the fact that Defendant A recognized a crime and opposed to it, and that there was no economic benefit acquired by the crime of this case is favorable to Defendant A.

In full view of the above circumstances, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unjustifiable and unreasonable, taking into account the following circumstances: Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime.

this part of the prosecutor.