2. The fact that the Defendants recognized all of the instant crimes and reflected, the Defendants did not have the criminal record subject to criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea, and the fact that some of the Defendants committed attempted crimes are considered in sentencing of the instant Defendants.

However, the crime of this case basically leads to serious danger and injury to the immigration administration of the Republic of Korea by illegally entering the Republic of Korea by massing illegal aliens, and is an act of breaking various crimes and social problems caused by illegal aliens. In light of the seriousness of the social strike, it is necessary to strictly punish them, and in particular, considering the situation where Jeju-do, which has the weak point of the visa entry system, uses it as the main passage of the illegal entry of Chinese nationals.

Furthermore, the Defendants’ crime of this case was planned and sealed by using a stacked cargo vehicle so as not to be discovered in the port inspection. The number of Chinese people who intended the Defendants to move or move is not more than seven. In light of the fact that the Defendants took economic benefits from the crime of this case, the nature of the crime is extremely poor.

In addition to the above points, considering all the following factors, considering the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, family environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the judgment of the first instance court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion, and unless there are any data newly discovered in the trial, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for all grounds.