A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts, the fact that the defendants stolen the victim's property jointly is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendants of special larceny charges on the sole charge of Defendant A, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (a fine of three million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that “the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants conspired to steals property owned by F and I and shared the theft act,” on the basis of the detailed circumstances in the items of “not guilty portion” of the judgment.

In a thorough examination of the above judgment of the court below in light of the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant denied the crime of this case up to the trial of the court, and did not reflect on the denial of the crime of this case, the defendant has the record of criminal punishment and juvenile protective disposition for the same crime, and the defendant committed the crime of this case during the repeated crime period due to special larceny, etc.

However, the damage caused by the crime of this case is relatively minor and the damage is recognized to have been returned to the victims.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of crime, means and consequence of crime, etc., and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the lower judgment, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible.