A. The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (a two-month imprisonment and two-year probation, probation, and community service order 120 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. According to the Defendant A’s statement, the principal offender, and the conviction against the Defendant, Defendant C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was sufficiently recognized that the Defendant acquired stolen goods worth KRW 5,964,00 from May 31, 201 to November 17, 2011.

2. Determination

A. Each of the instant crimes committed against Defendant A is deemed to have continuously stolen the fishery products worth approximately KRW 15 million for about 32 months in the fishery products store in which the Defendant worked as an employee, and the nature of the relevant crime is deemed not to be negligible. However, while the Defendant confessions and objects to the instant crime, the Defendant deposited the total amount of damages for the victim at the lower court, and the previous conviction of the first head of the instant crime as indicated in the lower court’s judgment is in the concurrent relationship between each of the instant crimes and the instant crime under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the equity between the case where the judgment is made at the same time, and all of the other sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

B. The facts charged in a criminal trial as to Defendant C’s appeal should be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should find the Defendant guilty with evidence having probative value sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, there is room for doubt of guilt against the Defendant even if there is no such evidence.