2. In light of the judgment, there are favorable circumstances for the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants led to the instant crime and stated that they were divided, that all damaged articles were temporarily returned, and that the victims did not want the punishment of the Defendants.

However, there are seven times the criminal records of punishment for larceny and unlicensed driving, and nine times the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the same kind and the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the same kind and the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the same kind and the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of the criminal records of this case,

In full view of the above circumstances and the degree of sharing the Defendants’ shares in the crimes, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victims, motive, background, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and family relationship, the sentence imposed by the lower court is adequate, and it is not deemed unfair. Thus, the Defendants’ 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.