Of the thief, the remainder of the charge of larceny against Defendant A, excluding the acquittal part.

A. Defendant A (the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misappropriation of unfair sentencing) 1) Defendant A did not use the force of force against the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s judgment on the ground of unfair sentencing (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (in fact-finding, unreasonable sentencing) 1) the prosecutor’s assertion of thief (not guilty part) and the fact that Defendant A stolen the victim’s property expenses as stated in each of the facts charged. However, since the lower court acquitted each of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts. 2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts as to the violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act (not guilty part), the lower court may acknowledge the fact that the Defendants conspired and made a transaction by using credit card in the name of other credit card merchants

However, since the court below acquitted the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

3) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A on the ground of unreasonable sentencing is too unfasible and unfair. 2. We examine ex officio determination (the grounds for appeal by the Defendant A and the Prosecutor prior to the determination of the changes in indictment).

With respect to the violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act against the Defendants in the trial of the party, the prosecutor shall maintain the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and in his preliminary case, the "Article 70 (3) 6 and Article 20 (2) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act" is applicable to the defendant A and the applicable provisions to the defendant B.