2. The fact that the Defendants recognized all of their crimes, agreed upon with most victims, and the victims do not want to punish the Defendants, and that the Defendants are the persons with disabilities of class 3 in intellectual disability is favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendants by impairing their residence, etc. on several occasions, theft of property, and driving a motor device, bicycle without a driver's license, and the defendants already have the record of criminal punishment several times for the same type of crime, and the defendant Eul committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime of the same crime, and the defendant Eul also committed the crime of this case against the defendants at the end of the suspension period of the execution of the same crime.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the Defendants’ age, sexual conduct, environment, etc., and various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the “AG” of the 7th page of the judgment below is a clerical error of the “AF”, and the “the pertinent provision of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime of 1.” in the application of the statutes is a clerical error in the “Article 331(2) and 331(1) of the Criminal Act” of the “Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act and Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure”. Thus, it is obvious that the “AG” of the judgment below is a clerical error in the “Article 331(2) and 364(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (special larceny).”