The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant

A, B-.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s respective sentences (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months, one year and six months of short term, one year and six months of short term, one year and one year of short term, and one defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and four months, and one year and four months of short term) are too unreasonable;

2. As to Defendant A and B’s assertion, circumstances such as the confession of the instant crime and the abuse of their wrongness are acknowledged, the Defendants’ consent to the punishment of the Defendants does not want to be punished by the Defendants, the equity in the case of Defendant B’s judgment at the same time with the special larceny as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and the fact that the Defendants are still juveniles are still recognized.

However, the crime of this case is committed by force the Defendants to take property through continuous intimidation and assault after the Defendants were detained in the victim, and to conduct numerical behavior to the frighted victim. In light of the method and content of the crime, the nature of the crime is very poor in light of the method and content of the crime. The victim appears to have suffered a considerable physical and mental pain due to the crime of this case, and the Defendants committed the crime of this case at least 10 times, even though they had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition due to theft and violence, even though they committed the crime of this case, they committed the crime of this case. The defendants committed the crime of this case at least 10 times, and the defendants were subject to disciplinary punishment due to the violation of discipline during the confinement period, equity of sentencing with the cases of the same and similar kind, and other sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the court

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is rejected.

3. On January 9, 2001, when the judgment of the court below was pronounced on Defendant C with the birth of January 9, 2001, the defendant was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, but since it has reached the age of majority, the defendant was sentenced to an irregular sentence against the defendant.