2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the Defendants as elements for sentencing were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court and sufficiently considered. There is no particular change in the situation that is the conditions for sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, in full view of all the sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal records, the background and motive leading to the instant crime, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too big and it cannot be said that the sentencing of the Defendants exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, on the grounds that the amount obtained by the Defendants in this case is a large amount, and the Defendants did not receive a letter from the victims.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.