All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the fine of KRW 4,000,000, Defendant B: the fine of KRW 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. There are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendants’ confessions of each of the instant crimes and the Defendants’ agreement with the victims of the instant crimes.

However, Defendant A cannot be deemed to be in violation of the truth, such as making a statement to the effect that the confession of each of the crimes of this case was expected to be settled later or that it was not a conclusive intentional act, etc. Defendant A is fined once due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act. Defendant B has been punished on seven occasions, including a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving). Defendant B does not reflect the fact that Defendant B committed the instant theft in collusion with Defendant A while dismissing the victim’s products, without any change in circumstances that may be considered as the grounds for sentencing in the first instance trial, and there is no other change in the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, family relationship, and consequence, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and the theory of changes. In light of these circumstances, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unfair.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, “15,636,810 won” of the second act of the judgment below as “14,968,650 won” and “16,304,970 won” of the fourth act of the judgment below as “15,636,810 won”, and correction is made as “15,636,810 won.”