B Appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are dismissed, respectively.

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants (one and half years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Defendant A committed the instant crime, such as drinking driving, etc. during the period of repeated crime of imprisonment, due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) as stated in the lower judgment.

In addition, even though there was a history of punishment for imprisonment with prison labor due to theft in the past, the property was stolen by intrusion upon the residence of another person twice in collusion with the defendant B, and the method of crime was interviewed and planned, and the amount of damage is not much.

Defendant

B Even though there was a past history of having been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a suspended sentence due to a theft crime committed three times in the past, property was stolen by in collusion with the defendant A in the past, or by intrusion upon another's residence on another's own, on three occasions, and there is a lot of damage.

However, the Defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case and reflect their depth.

The victim C made an agreement with the victim or deposited the total amount of 4 million won.

Defendant

B agreed to pay 16.5 million won to victims C as part of the amount of damage.

The court below sentenced the above punishment against the defendant in consideration of the above favorable or unfavorable circumstances to the defendant.

In addition, even if the materials submitted in the trial of the party are considered, there is no meaningful change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the court below.

In addition, the defendants' age, sex, intelligence and environment, health and property status, family relationship and social ties, and victims.