2. The fact that the instant crime was committed in a systematic and planned manner, the victims did not receive any particular damage from the victims, and the Defendants had been punished several times due to special larceny, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the defendants are all aware of the crimes, and they are against themselves, and they do not repeat again.

In light of the fact that the Defendants had no record of punishment for the same kind of crime during the past 10 years, it seems that they had been able to lead their lives by lawful means of the pertinent period. It is also necessary to enable them to return to society and return to society after returning to the proper period of punishment.

The lower court seems to have determined punishment by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned various circumstances, the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, and the circumstances after the crime.

The sentencing of the lower court is within the reasonable scope of its discretion.

In addition, there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be newly considered in the trial.

Therefore, the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too uneasible.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals against the defendants are without merit.