A. Each sentence (Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment, Defendant B: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, Defendant C: 1 year and 1 year and 4 months of suspended execution, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor, 1 year and 3 years of suspended execution, and 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment) declared by the court below against the Defendants are too unreasonable.

B. Each of the above types sentenced by the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the above legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial. The Defendants and the prosecutor agreed with the victim BC on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair. Defendant A and B agreed with the victim BC; Defendant A and agreed with the victim A to raise their children; Defendant A and agreed with all the Defendants, and the crime of conflict in this case was committed by the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s sense of shame, causing irreparable mental harm as well as irrecoverable mental harm to the victims; most Defendants were not subject to use from the victims; the circumstances surrounding the lower court’s oral proceedings and the circumstances leading up to the lower court’s unfair sentencing, including the following factors and the Defendant’s age of the crime.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.