2. The conclusion of the judgment reveals that the Defendants recognized all of their crimes, part of the damaged items were returned, and agreed with some victims.

On the other hand, however, the defendants had the records of punishment for the same crime, in particular, even though they were punished for a repeated crime due to the last punishment, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not very good, the risk of recidivism is assessed to be high, the victims' damage has not been recovered almost, there is no change in circumstances after the judgment of the court below, and the circumstances alleged by the defendants appear to have been determined by the court below in consideration of all the sentencing conditions in the records, including the defendants' age, character and behavior, the background of the crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the above arguments by the defendants cannot be accepted, since the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.