The prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the suspended sentence of three years, the community service order and the lecture order in one year and six months, the remaining Defendants' imprisonment of eight months, the suspended sentence of two years, and the community service order) declared by the court below is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court appears to have served as follows: (a) the Defendants did not reach the age of majority at the time of the instant crime; (b) the Defendants did not have any record of committing the instant crime; (c) Defendant A’s completion of official approval and publication of the first theft guidance; (d) Defendant A passed a vocational specialized school; and (e) the Defendant would be going to go back to and go against the Defendant; (c) the rest of the Defendants appeared to have led to the instant crime by using friendly Co-Defendant A, Ltd.; (d) the degree of participation in the instant crime was relatively insignificant compared to that of the instant crime; (e) Defendant C and D did not have any record of committing the instant crime; and (e) Defendant B did not have any record of committing the instant crime due to special larceny, etc.; and (e) Defendant A did not have any advantage to the victim of the instant crime; and (e) Defendant C and D did not appear to have been able to take the overall role of the instant crime.