A. Prosecutor 1) In the case of larceny on July 7, 2013, based on the victim E’s statement and the Defendants’ other special larceny methods and circumstances, the Defendants jointly recognized the theft of mobile phones, cash, credit cards, etc. from the victim E, but the lower court recognized only a simple larceny against Defendant A and acquitted Defendant B, by misunderstanding the facts. 2) The sentence (6 months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants on the Defendants is too weak.

B. The above punishment imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too heavy.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts: (i) victim E saw the Defendants at first and last drinking, but there was no cell phone, cash, credit card, etc.; (ii) the third party used the lost credit card with convenience store, taxi fee, and telecom, etc.; and (iii) the Defendants did not know of the theft of one's cell phone by means of leakage, time, and method; and (iv) the Defendants did not recognize the fact that each special larceny committed on June 2, 2013 was stolen jointly by the Defendants; but with regard to the crime against victim E on July 7, 2013, the Defendants stated that Defendant A, alone, stolen the victim's goods, without any prior consent, and subsequently, Defendant B was aware of the aforementioned theft; and (iii) there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was no reason to deny only the above crime, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

Therefore, it is true.