Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

seizure.

A. Defendant A1) Since the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the part concerning Article 329 of the Criminal Act among Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 5-4(1) of the same Act on February 26, 2015 concerning the attempted crimes under Article 329 of the Criminal Act are unconstitutional, Defendant A1’s application of Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the lower court’s decision that applied Article 5-4(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes that the Constitutional Court decided

B. Defendant B(1) did not know that he is an accomplice, and there was no fact that the Defendant, as stated in the criminal facts of paragraph (1) of the judgment below, as stated in the judgment of the court below, had the victim fright, and received one cellular phone at the market price from the food victim.

B) As stated in [Attachment 2-6] Nos. 2-6 of the List of Crimes No. 1640,000 won, the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one-month imprisonment is too unlimited and unfair).

2. Determination:

A. Ex officio determination (Defendant A) 1) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the Prosecutor changed the name of the crime against Defendant A into “Habitual Special Larceny” in the trial of the court below. “Article 5-4(6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,” among applicable provisions of law, “Article 32, Article 331(1) and Article 342 of the Criminal Act” was applied for changes in the indictment. This Court permitted this.