2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of all the circumstances on the grounds of sentencing (including the following: (a) the lower court committed a crime of the same kind during the period of repeated crime; (b) the victim did not reach an agreement; and (c) the amount of damage incurred therefrom; and (d) all the sentencing conditions (such as the fact that the Defendant is a person related to a dual punishment; (b) the Defendants are bound to be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 6 months even if mitigation was made against the Defendants; and (c) the circumstances in which the Defendants were able to be sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 6 months) as the reasons for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In so doing, the lower court’s assertion that the Defendants were likely to have opened the window of Matern and the mother’s appearance after the divorce of parents; and (c) is likely to have obtained occupation faithfully.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.