All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. If there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The grounds alleged by the Defendants in this Court as elements for sentencing are already revealed to be circumstances in which the lower court had already been present during the oral proceedings of the lower court, or the lower court has sufficiently taken into account in determining the Defendants’ punishment. There is no particular change in circumstances in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to the conditions for sentencing after

Defendant

A denies some of the contents of the circumstances surrounding the lease of the instant hospital building at the lower court, and recognized it to this court. However, it is difficult to view the lower court’s form as a change in circumstances that could change.

Considering the circumstances indicated by the lower court on the grounds of sentencing, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, all of the conditions of sentencing and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines, including the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

The Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing is without merit.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is without merit and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.