In light of the overall circumstances of this case, each punishment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime by intrusion upon a third party’s residence together with F and stolen money and valuables. The Defendants are planned to commit the instant crime, such as sharing their roles and securing the means of movement in advance, and one person is likely to be in the presence of an abandoned house, which seems to pose a significant risk to commit the instant crime.

Although there is a change that the Defendants came to commit the instant crime on the grounds of economic difficulties, it cannot be justified for the Defendants to commit the crime without having committed the crime even though they were the period of repeated crime, solely on the motive and background of such crime. Although there are favorable circumstances, such as the Defendants to recognize the Defendants’ mistake, partial damage recovery, the victims did not want to punish the Defendants, taking into account all the factors of sentencing, including the Defendants’ age, family relationship, criminal record, character and conduct, and environment, the lower court is deemed to have imposed an appropriate sentence on the Defendants. Therefore, each of the Defendants’

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since each appeal by the defendants is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, the judgment of the court below is clear that the list of crimes was omitted by mistake, and such addition is made in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure, and ex officio correction is made).