All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below's sentencing (three years of imprisonment to Defendant A and two years and six months of imprisonment to Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances, such as: (a) the Defendants generally repented the mistakes; (b) the Defendants are against the instant crime; and (c) Defendant B ought to take responsibility for difficult livelihood by raising young children; (b) the Defendants appears to have participated in the instant crime upon Defendant A’s recommendation; and (c) the Z, the injured victim of the instant crime under paragraph (2) of the Criminal Act of 2013 Go-Ma2821, submitted a written agreement with the Defendant A to the effect that the Z, the injured victim of the instant crime, pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article, would disrupt Defendant A

However, Defendant A committed the instant crime with the crime of 2013 Man-Ma2277, while Defendant B was arrested or detained to an investigation agency for the crime of 2013 Man-Ma2321, which was decided in its holding, and Defendant B continued to commit the instant crime even during the period during which Defendant B was prosecuted for the stolen acquisition crime similar to the instant case on or around February 2012 and was tried. The Defendants committed the instant crime in a systematic and planned manner, such as sharing roles with other accomplices and using phiphones, etc. The Defendants did not recover from damage. The stolen acquisition crime does not only make it difficult to exercise the right to request the return of stolen goods of the victim of the instant crime, but also does not seem to have caused the instant crime by participating in the realization of the profit of the principal offender. In particular, the lower court’s sentencing cannot be seen to have been unfair in view of the fact that the crime is not good and the Defendants’ age, age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and consequence of the instant crime, etc.

3. Thus, the defendants' appeal is justified.