2. According to the arguments and records of the instant case, each of the lower judgment appears to have been appropriately determined by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the prosecutor (the Defendants also completed an agreement with the victim I). Since there is no special circumstance to change ex post facto sentencing, the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Provided, That among the judgment below, Article 136 (1) and Article 136 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act "Article 136 (1), Article 30 of the same Act" and Article 260 (1) and Article 30 of the same Act "Article 260 (1) and Article 30 of the same Act" are clearly erroneous terms of office under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the court below's ex officio correction is made pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.