2. The Defendants led to the confession of the crime; the Defendants were the first offender who had no record of committing the crime; and the representative L of the H occupant representative management group wanted to take the measures against Defendant D, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the Defendants did not agree with the victim N, Defendant E shared the act of commission with Defendant A, B, and C to commit each of the crimes of this case, and the degree of Defendant E’s participation is less than that of other accomplices.

It is difficult to see Defendant D as well, considering the degree of participation in the instant crime and the submission of L’s written applications, etc., the lower court appears to have taken account of the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

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