2. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, no new sentencing data was submitted by this court and no particular change exists in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment.

In addition, the crime of this case was committed jointly or independently by the defendants, and the property was stolen over several hundreds of times by entering another person's vehicle or other person's residence, and the nature of the crime is very bad.

In addition, even though the defendants are under the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, they committed the crime of this case.

In full view of the circumstances unfavorable to the above Defendants and the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, considering all the facts favorable to the Defendants, including the fact that the Defendants repented and reflected their mistakes, some crimes were attempted, and some damaged goods were seized and returned to the victim P, AA, N, S, U, Y, and E, and the victim AO did not want punishment against Defendant A.

Even if the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable, it cannot be said that the lower court’s discretion goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

We do not accept the Defendants’ assertion that the lower court’s sentencing is unreasonable.

3. Conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.