2. As to Defendant A, the lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) considering the fact that Defendant A repeatedly committed each of the instant offenses during the period of probation due to larceny, etc., due to favorable circumstances in which the Defendant led to the confession and reflection of the offense; and (b) the damage was relatively large; and (c) comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the offense; and (d)

In addition, the court below imposed punishment on Defendant B by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the confession and reflect of the crime; (b) the damage was relatively large; and (c) the victim AF’s partial damage was recovered due to favorable circumstances: (a) the same type of crime was committed; and (b) the crime committed in the instant case was committed in a period of three months, not exceeding three months; and (c) the victim was committed with multiple and repeated crimes; and (d) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the trial process of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime

The grounds for unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendants appear to be the circumstances in which the lower court determined the Defendants’ punishment, and sufficiently considered, and the lower court’s punishment was made within the reasonable scope of discretion. There are no circumstances suggesting that the lower court changed the above sentencing conditions in the appellate court.

Therefore, since the court below’s punishment is heavy, the Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.