All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

[Attachment 2] of the judgment of the court below.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is that each sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, Defendant B: Imprisonment of one year and six months, and confiscation, Defendant C: imprisonment of one year and one year and six months, and one year and six months, and confiscation) is too unreasonable. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the above sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine both the Defendants and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing along with each argument of unfair sentencing, and examine the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendants in the original trial once again at the trial (it cannot be deemed that the degree of injury of the victims who can be confirmed through the statements, diagnosis, photographs, etc. of the relevant persons cannot be deemed to be less than that of the victims. However, considering the plan and process of the instant crime, the Defendants shown in the immediately following fact, the Defendants’ power, etc., it appears that the instant crime was not committed under a fatal and specialized manual. Considering the circumstances leading to the instant crime, it appears that all the Defendants were over 60 years of age, and in particular, the Defendant A was under the age of 60, and considering all the circumstances, such as the fact that the health condition was not good after the surgery on March 4, 2009). The lower court appears to be appropriate for each of the Defendants on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be deemed that it is too hot or unreasonable.

3. According to the conclusion, the appeal filed by the Defendants and the prosecutor is all dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is clear that the “Evidence No. 5 (쇠 5)” in the second sentence of the judgment below is a clerical error in the “Evidence No. 6 (쇠 6 (쇠 6)” and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench to correct it pursuant to