All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of the defendant A 2 years, the imprisonment of the defendant B 1 years and the imprisonment of the defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendants expressed an attitude against each of the instant offenses while recognizing all of the instant offenses, and the fact that the Defendants agreed with the victims other than F, the victim of the attempted larceny, is favorable to the Defendants.

However, even though the Defendants were sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor for special larceny and two years with prison labor for a suspended sentence on February 16, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 24, 2011, the Defendants committed each of the instant offenses repeatedly despite the suspended sentence period. In around 2009, the Defendants had been sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny and two years of suspended sentence, and the Defendants’ method of committing each of the instant special larceny, which the Defendants were sentenced to suspended sentence, is identical to or similar to the method of committing each of the instant larceny, and the risk of recidivism and the risk of recidivism cannot be easily ruled out, are disadvantageous to the Defendants.

On the other hand, if the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive, the Defendants could be at a disadvantage that should be additionally sentenced to six months of imprisonment with labor due to the cancellation of the above suspended sentence, but the above disadvantage was not caused as the period of the above suspended sentence expires during the trial of the court.

Therefore, in full view of all the circumstances in which the Defendants were not able to commit the instant crime and other circumstances, such as the motive, means, age, character and conduct, etc. of the Defendants, as seen above, the sentence of sentence on the Defendants is inevitable, and thus, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

Therefore, all defendants' arguments are not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there is no ground for appeal.