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

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment of 1 year and six months, probation period of 3 years, community service work 160 hours, Defendant B: imprisonment of 10 months, and 2 years of suspended execution) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair;

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect them. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court solely on the ground that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). When it is anticipated that Defendant A would be subject to compulsory execution from a victim as a couple, the Defendants concealed the property by changing the name of the business operator of “D hotel” operated by Defendant A (hereinafter “D hotel of this case”) on two occasions for the purpose of evading it, as well as concealing the property by changing the name of the business operator of the “D hotel” operated by Defendant A for the purpose of evading it. Also, in light of the circumstances, method, and degree of damage, etc. of each of the instant crimes, such as destroying the property owned by the victim and obstructing the exercise of rights by the victim, the crime

In addition, it is recognized that the defendants did not receive a letter from the victim until the trial of the court.

However, the defendants led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case, and the defendant A received the victim by depositing KRW 250,490,756 for the victim (the 60th page of the evidence record). The victim was apportioned KRW 315,577,076 in the auction procedure for the hotel of this case (the 37th page of the evidence record), and the part of the victim's claims is deemed to have been repaid, and the defendant A did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the defendant B did not have any record of criminal punishment for the previous crime, and after the decision of the court below, it can change the sentence of the court below.