The part of the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant B’s imprisonment of eight months, respectively.

A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A’s failure to cooperate with F in the crime of special larceny of this case, which led to the crime of special larceny of this case for the safety of Defendant A and his family members, without any choice, for the sake of the safety of Defendant A and the Defendant A’s family members. Thus, this does not constitute a crime of coercion. 2) The punishment imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that Defendant B is against the Defendant B, and that Defendant B’s participation in the instant crime is minor, such as the fact that Defendant A was committed while moving oil, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the act compelled under Article 12 of the Criminal Act refers to the act committed by coercion by another person, such as impergible violence or intimidation to injure his/her life or body. Here, intimidation refers to intimidation which does not have any other way to prevent harm to his/her or his/her family's life and body, and coercion means a specific act by preventing a forced person from making a free decision-making (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3306, Jun. 29, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below did not appear to have exercised an act which could not be resistance against the defendant A, or made a intimidation without means to defend the life or body of the defendant A or his/her family members. Thus, the defendant A cannot be deemed to constitute an act of coercion of this case, and thus, the defendant A's assertion that the crime of misappropriation of this case constitutes an unreasonable sentencing with the victim.