Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for seven years, for four years, for a short term of three years, and for three years.

A. The Defendants were in the state of mental and physical disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime (2012 high-liability 111) as stated in the lower judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of eight years, a short term of seven years, Defendant B and C: each maximum term of five years, and a short term of four years) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, and the Defendant was sentenced to an irregular sentence on April 19, 194 as a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the judgment of the court below was rendered, but the judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to an irregular sentence as above is apparent that he has reached the age of majority. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to an unlawful sentence cannot be maintained any longer. However, even if there are grounds for reversal ex officio in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s assertion of mental or physical disability still is subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and this will be examined below. 2) According to the records on the argument of mental or physical disability, the Defendant’s judgment of the court below [2012Dahap1111] is found to have been in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime, but it does not seem to have reached a state of changing things or weak decision

B. According to the records on Defendant B’s assertion of mental and physical disability, according to the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s judgment of the court below (2012 high-level 1111) is deemed to have been in a state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the crime, but it does not seem to have led to the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disability is without merit. 2) The Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not less complicated in light of the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the means and method of the crime, and the degree of damage