The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, additional collection, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months, suspended execution for a period of two years, and community service for 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (in respect of Defendant A) committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by either misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, thereby omitting the pronouncement of forfeiture of Nos. 1 and 2 as to the evidence attached by Defendant A on the total list of seized objects, which was confiscated by Defendant A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (a year and six months of imprisonment, and an additional collection) is too uneasible and unfair

2. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor to find the misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine by itself is insufficient to recognize that the seized articles specified in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the total list of seized articles is related to each of the instant crimes by Defendant A, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the prosecutor’s mistake of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on a different premise is without merit.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing of Defendant A and the Prosecutor in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court to Defendant A is too heavy or unreasonable, and thus, all of the Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s wrongful claims for the sentencing are without merit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 186,80,000 won “187,80,000 won.” 4. Defendant B’s wrongful claims for the sentencing did not have the same criminal record, and Defendant B would not have committed such a crime again.

In light of the fact that one’s mistake is in profoundly against one’s own mistake and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, since the sentence imposed by the lower court against Defendant B is unreasonable due to its gross negligence, Defendant B’s wrongful allegation in sentencing is with merit.

5. According to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s appeal are respectively filed.