2. The defendants are fully recognized to commit their respective crimes, and the amount of damage caused by each of the crimes in this case is not less than the amount of damage, and the defendant B agreed with the victim AD is favorable to the defendants.

However, since the Defendants committed several crimes against many victims, they did not be less severe, Defendant A went to commit each of the instant crimes even though they were at the same time during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime, and Defendant B committed each of the instant crimes without being aware of the suspension period due to the same kind of crime. In particular, Defendant A appears to have led each of the instant crimes; Defendant A appears to have led each of the instant crimes; Defendant A appears to have led the instant crimes; there is no change to the degree of special consideration in sentencing; and in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, sex, family environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crimes, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable because the sentencing of the Defendants is too excessive. Therefore, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

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