All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (i) The Defendant is off the scene of the crime immediately after the commission of the crime, but voluntarily surrenders to the investigation agency, and thus his punishment should be mitigated.

Dob. The sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of Defendant B (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to Defendant A’s misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant received telephone contact from the investigative agency immediately after the commission of the crime; (b) voluntarily led the police officer to commit the crime by calling again; and (c) has been able to recognize and reflect his mistake until this court;

However, each of the crimes of this case is that the crime of this case is destroyed by damaging pipelines, installing illegal facilities, thiefing the ground on which oil pipelines are laid underground, and caused the attempted crimes to be committed. The motive and crime of this case was committed systematically and systematically. Each of the crimes of this case is highly dangerous and has great harm to society, such as fire explosion and large environmental pollution, etc., and each of the crimes of this case may lead large amounts to the crime of this case. After planning each of the crimes of this case, the defendant prepared a tool necessary for committing the crime of this case to prepare and implement the crime of this case, including selling land at the scene of the crime. The number of the defendants was voluntarily mitigated, and it is difficult to view that the punishment of the defendant was unfair because the number of the defendants did not become the cause of mitigation of punishment in light of various circumstances in the court below as a discretionary mitigation reason, and considering all the conditions expressed in the arguments after the crime of this case, there is no change in the sentencing after the sentence of this case.