A. Defendant A1 was guilty of this part of the facts charged, although Defendant A had not stolen or stolen TV and effort owned by the victim H in collaboration with Defendant B, Defendant A was guilty of this part of the facts charged. The judgment of the court below is erroneous of misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts: ① Joint Defendant B, a co-defendant of the instant crime, committed a theft of Defendant A’s H TV and this payment, together with Defendant A, from the investigative agency to the court of the first instance.

In light of the fact that Defendant A, in collaboration with Defendant B, fully recognizes the fact that Defendant A stolen TVs and she owned by the victim H, as stated in the judgment of the court below, is difficult to find out the credibility of the instant facts charged from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. As such, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

B. It is recognized that Defendant B’s judgment on the Defendants’ unfair argument of sentencing is divided into one’s own mistakes, and that the Defendants agreed with the victim L.

However, the crime of this case is not good; the Defendants committed the crime of this case again during the period of repeated crime even though they had been tried for the same kind of crime; the Defendants did not agree with the victim H until the trial was held; the Defendants’ participation in the crime of this case; and the Defendants’ age, sex and environment; motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, are too unreasonable.