2. In addition to the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing as to the Defendants, each of the instant crimes committed several times jointly by the Defendants, and the Defendants continued to commit the larceny committed by the Defendants for a considerable period of time. The Defendants attempted to acquire profits from the stolen vehicle, and the motive for the commission of the crime is not good, and the victims have not been recovered properly.

However, in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is not acceptable, since the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is deemed to be too unscheduled, and thus, it is deemed unfair, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments in the instant case, as follows: (a) the Defendants are deemed to have made the best efforts to recover the victims’ damage after the crime; (b) the Defendant deposited a considerable amount of money for the victim R; (c) Defendant C’s concurrent judgment at the same time when the crime for which the judgment became final and conclusive is adjudicated; (d) the Defendants need to take into account the possibility of improving their age and future; and (e) there is sufficient possibility that they may live as members of a healthy society.

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