Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

A. The Defendants (unfair form of punishment) committed by the lower court against the Defendants are deemed to be so unfair that each sentence (the Defendant A: imprisonment of August; the Defendant B’s imprisonment of six months; the probation period of six months; the community service order of six years) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to Defendant B), the court below acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that Defendant B conspired with Defendant B and embezzled the victim E’s property.

2. We examine the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, and there is no change of circumstances to consider the sentencing after the judgment of the court below, and considering various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments of this case, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the grounds for appeal, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Determination on the appeal by Defendant B and the Prosecutor

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

In the trial of the court below, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the embezzlement of which the court below acquitted as the primary charge, added the facts charged below as the ancillary charge, added "acquisition of stolen property" to the name of the crime, and "Article 362 (1) of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the Act, and permitted this Court.

However, as seen below, inasmuch as this court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary facts charged and found the Defendant guilty of the charges added in preliminary, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary facts charged can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

(b).