All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) by the court below is unfair because the punishment (for defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment and defendant B: 10 months of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the lower court’s judgment because new materials on sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too large and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

B. Meanwhile, in the lower court’s written opinion, the Defendants’ defense counsel at the time when the Defendants committed the instant crime.

Although it is not clear that he/she has withdrawn the above mental and physical weakness on the first trial date of the lower court, the lower court did not render a judgment on the argument of mental and physical weakness.

However, examining the circumstances revealed in the records of the instant case, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of commission of the crime, the Defendants’ conduct before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the Defendants were physically and mentally in a state of mental weakness at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the above omission of judgment by the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

3. 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 (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which is obvious that the Defendants’ appeal is a clerical error ex officio, by virtue of Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, and the Defendant’s appeal is corrected to Defendant’s “Defendant’s objection” as “Defendant