2. The judgment of Defendant A habitually committed the larceny of this case during the period of repeated crime, and Defendant B committed each of the larceny and the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents during the period of repeated crime.

The crime of larceny committed jointly by the defendants is highly dangerous in light of the law of the crime of larceny, etc., and the act of larcenying the four arms from the bank to the police against Qua who distributed money from the bank is highly likely to be subject to criticism. The damage caused by the crime of larceny in this case is small in size.

Defendant

In the case of traffic accident crimes committed by B, the degree of violation of duty of care is not less severe, and two victims of the accident in this case were injured for three weeks, and one victim was injured for six weeks, and some damages were compensated by the vehicle driven by Defendant B due to the purchase of liability insurance, but they did not completely recover from the damage of the victims of the traffic accident until the first instance.

The Defendants are showing the attitude to recognize all the crimes of this case and to reflect the mistake.

Some thefts were returned to victims.

In addition, taking into account the following circumstances: the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., and the fact that there are no new changes in circumstances that may change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. As such, 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.