A. The grounds of appeal by A are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized both the instant crime and committed the instant crime; (b) actively cooperate in the investigation by an investigative agency; (c) resulting in the instant crime due to difficulties in livelihood; (d) the amount of damage is minor and most damaged items are seized; (e) the suspension of execution is invalidated if the sentence imposed by the lower court is finalized; and (e) the family members are leading the Defendant, and thus there is less risk of recidivism, the sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s grounds of appeal in the grounds of appeal in B recognized the instant crime in both cases; (b) the effect of suspended sentence when the sentence imposed by the lower court becomes final and conclusive; and (c) the occurrence of the instant crime in order to raise living expenses, the sentence (six months of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

C. In full view of C’s grounds of appeal: (a) the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes; (b) the Defendant practically plays the most important role in the house; and (c) the Defendant was resulting in the instant crime to raise living expenses; (b) the health of knee-man pneo-man; and (c) the primary offender, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In light of the judgment, there are favorable circumstances in sentencing, such as the reasons alleged to the Defendants, but Defendant A and B were sentenced to a suspended sentence for the same kind of crime and committed each of the instant crimes in the period of three to eight months. Defendant C again committed the instant crime while being prosecuted for the same crime; and Defendant C, as the instant crime, played a role of promoting theft, a high-priced smartphone stolen transaction even though carry-on is convenient as the instant crime was committed. Therefore, the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is less than the amount of theft.