2. There are extenuating circumstances to consider equity in the case where the Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime and simultaneously with the crime of this case.

However, even though Defendant A was sentenced several times of punishment and imprisonment as a crime of fraud, it seems that Defendant A committed the same kind of crime again, and it appears that Defendant B would have acquired property from the victims in a planned manner through division of roles using the same veterinary method. Defendant B also had a criminal record of fraud more than ten times, and there was no effort to recover damage caused by the crime of this case and no agreement with the victims. The circumstances asserted by the Defendants appear to have been a summary indictment regardless of the amount of damage already taken into account, and there was no change in circumstances until now, and considering various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, conditions before and after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendants is too unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

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.