2. The judgment has the record of punishing the Defendants for the crime of larceny of the same kind. The frequency of the crime of this case is considerably high, and there are no actual efforts to recover damage, Defendant A committed the crime of this case during the probation period, and Defendant B committed the crime of this case during the probation period. Defendant B is still under the grace period. Defendant B’s sentence is inevitable because it committed the crime of this case during the repeated period. In the case of habitual larceny, the statutory punishment is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for more than three years under Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the maximum punishment even if mitigation is to be imposed in consideration of the favorable circumstances of the Defendants. The Defendants were already sentenced to the maximum punishment in the court below, and the Defendants were sentenced to the punishment in the court below, and all of the sentencing records and arguments such as the age, family environment of the Defendants and the circumstances before and after the crime are not acceptable. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion is inappropriate.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.