2. The lower court determined that the Defendants were sentenced to punishment by taking account of the unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ confession of the instant crime, the fact that the crime was committed for livelihood purpose, and the victim E did not want the Defendant’s punishment. The Defendants committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, the Defendants shared organizational roles among the accomplices, and the use of vehicles, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendants seem to be the circumstances in which the lower court has already taken full account of the Defendants’ punishment.

The court below determined the punishment within a reasonable scope by taking into account the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants in relation to the sentencing of this case, and there are no circumstances to deem that the above sentencing conditions were changed in the appellate court.

Therefore, since the punishment of the court below is too heavy, the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is without merit and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.