2. As to the grounds for appeal, the Defendants were gathered for the crime of this case only by those who had no awareness at all, and Defendant A committed the robbery of this case against the victim who was the old workplace rent, and the Defendants planned the robbery by sharing their roles, and then, the Defendants committed the larceny by intrusion upon another’s residence, or committing robbery by using a knife and knife, and thus, have a high social risk.

Defendant

C has been punished for the same kind of crime.

In light of this, it is necessary to punish the Defendants.

However, Defendant A is an initial offender, and Defendant B has not been sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

Defendant

C The content of the crime committed by robbery is that the crime committed by force was conducted in excess of 17,600 won against minors, and that was nine years prior to the instant crime.

Defendant

A and C reported 119 immediately after the crime of this case and tried to prevent the victims of sexual harassment from causing danger.

All the Defendants recognize the crimes of this case and repent their errors.

Both the Defendants and the victims do not want to punish the Defendants by mutual consent.

These circumstances are favorable to the Defendants.

In addition to this point, in full view of various circumstances such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, it is not recognized that each sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.