All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (the Defendant A, seven years of imprisonment, five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) took into account the following favorable circumstances: (b) the Defendants’ nature and method of crime are very bad; (c) the Defendants’ pain was aggravated by denying the commission of crime in the course of investigation; (d) the Defendants’ intent to punish the Defendants; (b) the Defendants appeared to recognize and reflect the Defendants’ mistake; and (c) Defendant A did not have any history of punishment for the same crime; and (d) took into account the favorable circumstances, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendants’ age, character and behavior; (b) the motive and background of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against the Defendants was imposed.

In full view of the elements of sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing determination is too inappropriate because it goes beyond the reasonable limit of discretion, and there is no change in sentencing conditions, such as that the Defendants are still unable to receive a letter from the victim, when comprehensively considering the elements of sentencing, the lower limit of applicable sentences under the law, the scope of recommended sentences under the sentencing guidelines.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is rejected.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, it is evident that the 3rd to 17th, 5th to 5th, and 6th to 9th, among the judgment below, are erroneous. Thus, it is ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.