2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(2) According to the Majority Opinion, the lower court’s determination of the sentence was made within a reasonable scope, on July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendants were committed against the Defendants when committing a crime; (b) Defendant B did not have been sentenced once to a fine due to violent crimes; and (c) the circumstances leading to the instant case were somewhat taken into account; (d) Defendant A had a majority of the previous districts; (b) the victim’s construction work was suspended for long time due to the Defendants’ act; and (c) there was a concern that additional risks may arise due to intrusion inside the construction site, unlike the place and method of the assembly reported by the Defendants; and (d) there was no other circumstance to be newly considered in the trial; and (e) the sentencing of the lower court’s sentencing process, such as the motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the circumstances after the sentencing of the crime, cannot be deemed excessively

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.