2. All of the Defendants’ confessions and reflects on their crimes, the degree of their discourses seems to be relatively insignificant, Defendant C agreed with the victim AD, Defendant C agreed with the victim AE, Defendant D agreed with the victim AD, Defendant D’s agreement, and Defendant D’s juvenile is a circumstance that may be considered in favor of the Defendants.

However, even though all the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case during the probation period, they committed each of the crimes of this case. In particular, Defendant C was subject to juvenile protective disposition several times for the same crime, and in 2015, he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for special larceny, without being aware of the fact that he was sentenced to a suspended sentence, and Defendant D also has a record of being subject to juvenile protective disposition through several times for special larceny, there is no change to the degree of special consideration for sentencing, and there is no change to the degree of special consideration for sentencing. In full view of all the sentencing conditions in the records of this case including the defendants' age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, 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.