Of the facts charged by the prosecutor, as to the special larceny on November 8, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, it can be evaluated that the Defendant’s act of taking C in the chief of an automobile protocol can be evaluated as having been a thief during the course of larceny by C; and C in the court of the lower court, “A was aware that the Defendant was going to the victim’s house for the purpose of larceny, and there was no fact that the Defendant committed his larceny.

Rather, in light of the fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that he actively proposed larceny, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendant could have committed the larceny by sharing the thief in cooperation with C at time and at a place, at a time and place.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the lower court: (a) in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which functionally controlled C’s theft by soliciting the Defendant to commit a special larceny on November 8, 2016 or by viewing the victim’s network outside the victim’s house.

It is insufficient to view that this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, and this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime. In light of the above judgment of the court below compared with the above evidence, the judgment of the court below is justified, and there

subsection (b) of this section.

As for the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and it is reasonable and appropriate within the range of reasonable and appropriate, taking into account the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.