2. The instant crime of this case, based on the fact that the Defendants’ threat of force interferes with the business of the victim, and the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the crime are not good, should be strictly punished.

However, the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes and there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime. The instant crime led by E, an accomplice, and the degree of participation by the Defendants is relatively minor, the victim does not want the punishment of the Defendants, and in full view of various sentencing conditions indicated in the records of the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be too uneasible and unreasonable. Thus, the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against the Defendants is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals against the Defendants by the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.