2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendants include the fact that the Defendants were not wanting to punish the victims under a mutual agreement with the victim I only, and that their mistakes are divided and reflected.

However, there are many records that Defendant A was punished by a fine for the same and other crimes. Defendant B repeatedly committed the crime of this case during the period of the suspension of execution under the punishment for the same crime. Defendant B committed the crime of this case with H et al. and repeatedly planned to commit the crime of this case with H et al., while the crime of this case was committed by the Defendants, it is not good that the crime of this case is highly high in quality of crime such as denying their own crimes in the investigation process of this case and making a false testimony to conceal the crime in the H criminal case, which is an accomplice. The crime of this case infringes the court's judicial function by impairing the trial for finding the truth and endangering the legitimate judgment, and thus infringing the nation's judicial function. In full view of all the sentencing conditions such as the Defendants' age, environment, personality and behavior, etc., it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the court is too unreasonable. The above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, in the application of the law of the court below, "1. Probation: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act" means "1. Probation: the main sentence of Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act; and Article 62-1. Probation and community service order: Article 62 of the Criminal Act.