2. It is recognized that there are circumstances that can be considered in sentencing against the Defendants, such as the Defendants’ erroneous recognition of the Defendants and reflective attitude, the value of stolen goods is only three million won, and the Defendants do not want the punishment of the Defendants by mutual consent with the victims.

However, even though the Defendants committed the instant crime by using the method that was planned by the Defendants, and Defendant A had been sentenced three times to punishment due to the larceny, Defendant B committed each of the instant crimes during the period of suspension of the execution of punishment due to special larceny in 2015, even though Defendant B was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of punishment due to the special larceny in 2015, Defendant B committed each of the instant crimes in advance during the period of suspension of the execution of the punishment, and Defendant B appeared to have first proposed the instant crimes, and Defendant A had had the record of being punished three times due to driving without a license, even if he had the record of being punished three times again, and even driving a motor vehicle without the driver’s license, there is also a variety of circumstances in which the nature of the instant crime or the possibility of its

Considering the above circumstances and the overall circumstances such as the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment sentenced by the court below is determined to be within the proper scope of sentencing discretion.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.