All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (for each of the Defendants, six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendants is favorable to the Defendants, in light of the following: (a) the Defendants recognized the instant crime; (b) the victim of a special thief crime and the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendants; (c) the victim appears to have reached the instant crime in a difficult situation where Defendant A was living; and (d) the fact that Defendant B is in physical disability Grade IV, are favorable to the Defendants.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendants jointly and severally, with the following facts: (a) the Defendants committed the crime of this case is not good quality; (b) the Defendants were subject to criminal punishment several times before the Defendants committed the same crime; (c) Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the early branch of the Chuncheon District Court on August 13, 2010; (d) the Defendants committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period after the enforcement of the sentence was completed on May 8, 2015; and (e) Defendant B committed the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Seoul High Court Decision on December 22, 2010, which was sentenced to two years and six months after the enforcement of the sentence terminated on November 16, 2012; and (e) the lower court committed the crime of this case during the period of a repeated crime, which was unfavorable to the Defendants’ sentencing guidelines by the commission.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case, such as the background of the instant crime, the age of the Defendants, sexual conduct, environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that the Defendants’ appeal is without merit.