The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C’s imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D The sentence of the lower court (two months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the defendants' assertion on the defendant A and B had a favorable condition that leads to the confession of all the crimes of this case and reflects the wrongness, the defendants had the records of punishment several times for the same criminal records, and the crime of this case seems to be highly likely to be committed again during the same repeated crime period of the same kind. The crime of this case is likely to be stolen by damaging more than two defendants habitually by damaging the corrective device and intrusion upon other people's residence. The crime of this case is committed in this case, which exceeds KRW 100 million, the damage amount caused by the crime of this case exceeds KRW 100 million, which did not agree with the victims, and there was no effort to recover damage, and all other factors such as the defendants' roles, the number of crimes, the period of crimes, the number of crimes, the number of crimes, and the circumstances after the crime are considered to be unfair. Thus, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of Defendant C’s assertion constitutes favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects the mistake, and that the degree of participation in the instant crime was relatively weak compared to other accomplices. However, as seen earlier, the instant crime committed by two or more persons jointly intrudes on another’s residence and thus theft of property, which is highly dangerous, the Defendant has the history of being punished for suspended execution for the same crime, and the victims did not agree with the victims.