All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for two years) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine both the judgment prosecutor and the Defendants’ respective arguments of unfair sentencing, and examine the following: (a) the criminal record of injury to Defendant A; (b) the Defendant 2 committed another case despite the previous criminal record of robbery; (c) the circumstances leading up to each of the instant crimes; and (d) the gravity of the crime; (b) the Defendants committed the crime; (c) the circumstances favorable to the victims; and (d) the circumstances favorable to the Defendants’ agreement with the victims; and (e) other factors of all the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the crime; and (e) the developments leading up to the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance in which the assessment or maintenance is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, the lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendants cannot be deemed to be negligible or unreasonable because the sentence imposed on the Defendants is too weak or unreasonable, and thus, each of the grounds for unfair sentencing by the prosecutor and the Defendants are without merit.

3. The conclusion is that the prosecutor and the defendants' appeal are without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Article 1-b of the charge of this case). However, the summary of Paragraph 1-b of the charge of this case is as follows: the defendants conspired to carry dangerous articles and made intimidation to the victims on the face of the victims; it constitutes several crimes, and each special intimidation constitutes a common competition relationship.