2. The judgment of the Defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case and against it, the victim F of the crime of attempted special larceny does not want the punishment of Defendant A and B at the time of original judgment, and the degree of Defendant C’s participation in special larceny is somewhat minor against the other Defendants.

However, the Defendants had been punished several times including the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the same criminal act. Defendant B committed each of the instant crimes during the repeated crime period, the victim L of the instant special larceny appears to have suffered damage exceeding the amount of damage as indicated in the judgment of the court below due to the special larceny of this case. In full view of the motive and background, means and result of each of the instant special larceny, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the age, character and conduct of the Defendants, the character and conduct, environment, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. Accordingly, 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.