A. The lower court’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) on Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. At the time of the instant crime, Defendant B only driven at the request of Co-Defendant A at the time of the instant crime, which was the co-defendant, and there was no fact of participating in the instant crime

C. The lower court’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) on the part of the prosecutor’s defendant B’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing on the defendant B is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is consistent, and the lower court stated that: (a) before the crime of this case was committed, Defendant B consented to “I would see with money”; (b) Defendant B entered the place where the crime was committed; (c) Defendant B entered the place where the crime was committed and entered the place where the crime was committed; and (d) Defendant B was parked in a place where “I would see that I would go beyond the fence,” and (c) at the time, I would have been able to view that I would go beyond the fence. Considering the relationship with Defendant B and other accomplices and that A would have been thief by sharing their roles with other accomplices, the lower court’s aforementioned statement was reliable; and (b) Defendant B would have lawfully participated in the crime of this case in order to use the so-called car (K7) at the time of committing the crime; and (d) Defendant B would have been aware of the amount of money paid to Defendant B at the time of the crime of this case’s purchase and sale at the first instance of Seoul.