2. In light of the content and method of each of the instant crimes committed by the Defendants, there is no agreement with the victims, and Defendant A had a record of having been sentenced to suspension of indictment on charges of attempted larceny around 2010, and thus, the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendants are recognized.

However, the court below's assertion is without merit, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendants led to confession of the facts of the crime of this case and stated that they reflect their mistakes in depth; (b) the thief products were recovered in the course of investigation and were returned to the victims; (c) there is no criminal power to punish the defendants; (d) the defendants are mentally disabled persons; and (e) the economic situation is not sufficient; and (e) there is no special change in circumstances that may add the punishment of the court below to the punishment of this case; and (e) there is no change in circumstances that make it possible for the court below to add the punishment of the defendants to the records and arguments of this case; (b) the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendants as shown in the records and arguments of this case; (c) the motive, process and degree of participation; (d) balance with the victims; (e) relationship with the accomplices; (e) circumstances after the crime; (e) criminal records; and (e) family relationship and health conditions.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant B is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal against the prosecutor’s defendant B is groundless, and it is obvious that the prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant A is groundless. Thus, it is dismissed without holding any pleadings in accordance with Article 36