2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s mistake is divided, and Defendant A’s agreement with some victims is recognized.

However, Defendant A again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes, even though Defendant A had committed several criminal records of the same kind, and repeatedly committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes. Defendant A committed the instant crime with the victim’s property or attempted to steals for a long time, and the nature of the crime is not good. Defendant A did not agree with most victims up to the first instance trial; Defendant A’s participation in the instant crime; Defendant A’s age, sex and environment; Defendant A’s motive, means and consequence; and other conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, are considered, given that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too excessive and unfair. Thus, the foregoing assertion by Defendant A is without merit.

B. It is recognized that Defendant B’s mistake was divided by Defendant B, and Defendant B agreed with some victims.

However, Defendant B again committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crimes, even though Defendant B had committed several criminal records of the same kind, and repeatedly committed the instant crime in collaboration with Defendant B, and the nature of the instant crime is not good. Defendant B did not agree with most victims up to the first instance trial; Defendant B did not agree with most victims; Defendant B’s participation in the instant crime; Defendant B’s age, sex and environment; Defendant B’s motive, means and consequence; and other conditions of sentencing specified in the instant argument, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, are considered, and thus, the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B is too unreasonable. Thus, Defendant B’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3...