A. The Defendant does not commit the crime of acquiring stolen property of this case with the habitation of acquiring stolen property.

B. Taking into account the circumstances on the Defendant’s unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, under the title “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel,” stated in the judgment of the lower court.

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the defendant's assertion was rejected in determining that the defendant's habitive behavior of acquiring stolen property of this case can be recognized as having occurred even in the criminal conduct of acquiring stolen property of this case. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, it is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on habituality, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes except habitual crimes as indicated in the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing and against the mistake of the Defendant. The Defendant could be tried simultaneously with the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Composition and Activity of Organizations, etc.), the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the crime of robbery and Injury by robbery, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the final judgment, and the crime of injury by robbery, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the court, and thus there is a need to consider equality in the case where the judgment was received at the same time. The Defendant, who married around January 2012, did not act as an organization of Suwon and South Korean Literature, even if he did not withdraw from the Suwon and North Korean Literature wave as indicated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the lower court, and agreed with the victim AC and AD as stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the lower