The punishment of the court below (4 million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

In order for a special larceny to be established when two or more persons of the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act jointly commit the theft of another's property, there is a sharing of an act of conspiracy as a subjective element and an objective requirement, and the act of implementation is in a cooperative relationship at a time and at a place in the same time (see Supreme Court Decisions 67Do117, Jul. 22, 1969; 88Do1197, Sept. 13, 198; 88Do837, Mar. 14, 198; 96Do313, Mar. 22, 196). However, the facts charged of the special larceny of this case include not only the facts that B conspired to commit the larceny of this case with the Defendant, but also no sharing of any act of execution is made.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, B conspiredd to commit the larceny of this case with the defendant, and shared the thief with the defendant at the time and location in cooperation with the defendant.

In short, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and there is no other evidence to prove it [the prosecutor stated in the evidence list that “the purpose of confession” is to prove each police interrogation protocol (No. 12,15 of the evidence list) about B, but B did not make a statement to the effect that the police denied the participation in larceny by denying a conspiracy with the defendant, etc. (No. 27, 66 of the evidence record). Accordingly, the prosecutor’s assertion of the facts by mistake is without merit.

There is no change in circumstances that may consider the sentencing after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, and considering the various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case.