A. According to evidence related to mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the thief crime of this case in combination with the Defendant and I, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, etc.) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to prove that the Defendant conspireded with I to commit the larceny and that there was a sharing of the following act of practice.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on facts against the defendant, which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, requires respect for the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Examining the materials submitted at the trial court, there is no meaningful change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing against the Defendant is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The final appeal is dismissed.