The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (defendant B) was erroneous (defendant B), but there was no scambling the chest of A and abundled.

Sentencing (Crimes)

2. Considering the difference between the spirit of substantial direct deliberation and the method of evaluating the credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court’s determination on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court was clearly erroneous in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings at the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse without permission the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.

The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court, after directly questioning the witness, such as the victim, has credibility in the statement.

The judgment of the court below and the facts of the crime are admitted as evidence.

There is no special circumstance to deem that the first deliberation judgment was clearly erroneous or that maintaining it was considerably unfair.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below including the victim's statement in the court below, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below are recognized, and the judgment of the court below is justified

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

3. The appellate court’s judgment on each of the unfair arguments of sentencing is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

The Defendants are elderly and are also older.