2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendants, such as: (a) the Defendants still seem to have the potential to open to the future age in the beginning of the 20th century; (b) the Defendants are still not guilty of a sentence; and (c) the Defendants are divided into and against their mistakes.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendants by intrusion upon another's residence without any specific crime and theft of property, and the period of the crime, frequency of the crime, amount of damage, amount of damage, Defendant B committed the crime of this case without being aware of it during the period of probation; Defendant B received juvenile protective disposition at least four times for the same crime; Defendant was sentenced to juvenile protective disposition at least four times for the same crime; Defendant 1 and June 2 sentenced to the defendants; on the other hand, at the same time, they could not be an opportunity to prepare a serious reflective and new start for their misconduct; taking into account these factors, the lower court appears to have sentenced the defendants to the maximum imprisonment with prison labor for which they committed discretionary mitigation; and taking into account all the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendants' age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., it cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no reason to do so, and it is so decided as per Disposition.