2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants as elements for sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There is no particular change in the situation that is the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, even though the Defendants recognized all the crimes of this case and made mistake against the victims, the Defendants did not pay compensation for damage to the victims up to the trial, and the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case within the period of repeated crime due to the same criminal record, etc. comprehensively considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the circumstances and motive leading to the crimes of this case, and the circumstances before and after the crimes, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable and it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion 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 groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.