2. In light of the above-mentioned favorable circumstances, including the fact that the Defendants led to the instant crime, and the age of the Defendants, etc., the lower court appears to have determined punishment by fully taking into account the above favorable circumstances (as regards Defendant B, the amount of fine for a summary order was reduced to less than the amount of a summary order), and the degree of damage caused by the instant crime is not easy. The instant crime was committed in light of the fact that a majority against one victim by carrying a view of intimidation and violence, which could have resulted in a dangerous and serious result, and the attitude of the instant crime was bad, it is difficult to agree with the victim or not recovered from damage. Nevertheless, there is no special change in circumstances to change the sentence of the lower court after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered, and the Defendants did not know about the fact that there was a criminal conviction for each injury, the age of the Defendants, the age of the Defendants, and the records of character and conduct, etc., and there is no reason for the lower court’s assertion that the Defendants’ punishment is unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.