2. The lower court determined that: (a) under the unfavorable circumstances where each of the instant crimes was committed; (b) the Defendants committed a crime against the Defendants; (c) the Defendants violated the victim F unilaterally; and (d) the victim F did not want to punish the Defendants; (b) the Defendants appears to have committed a deep death by finding the victim police officer H; (c) the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime is relatively minor; and (d) the same criminal history of Defendant B was more than 10 years old; and (e) the sentence was imposed by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age and sexual behavior; and (e) the sentence was imposed by taking into account the following factors.

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

As pointed out by the prosecutor in the grounds of appeal, each of the crimes of this case is committed against police officers wearing uniform, and the defendants repeat the crimes of violence and thus there is a need to punish them.

However, considering these circumstances, the sentencing conditions mentioned above have been significantly changed in the court.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing, and in light of the above sentencing’s comprehensiveness, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unfluent.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

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