All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for four months) declared by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the defendants, who made a judgment, led to the confession of all crimes, divided their mistakes, Defendant A's punishment should be imposed in consideration of equity between the case and the case of judgment at the same time as the case of the crime of water acquisition of the head of the judgment that became final and conclusive in the case of Defendant A and the crime of water custody of the head of the judgment. Defendant B voluntarily surrenders to investigation agencies and paid 1 million won to the victim

However, the Defendants were sentenced to a fine, suspension of execution, and punishment on several occasions and were sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime, and Defendant B committed the instant crime without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to special larceny; Defendant B committed the instant crime without being aware of it; Defendant B committed the instant crime at the same time, and there is no change of circumstances that may otherwise determine the lower court’s age and sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the instant pleadings, such as the circumstances after the instant crime, are considered as being too unreasonable.

Therefore, 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 all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That since it is evident that the judgment of the court below was added to “each error” in the front of the “Article 53 of the Criminal Act” of the small amount mitigation provision applicable to the law, it is corrected to delete it ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.