A. In full view of the fact that misunderstanding B made a statement in an investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant suggested the larceny and was waiting outside the vehicle during the commission of larceny by himself and C,” and that the Defendant also made a statement to the effect that it conforms to B’s aforementioned statement in the police investigation, it may be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed a special larceny crime jointly with B and C, by viewing the network at the time of committing the crime.

Even if the defendant did not have a view in the vicinity at the time of the crime of special larceny, the fact that the defendant brought C and B to the scene of the crime is recognized, and therefore, the joint principal offender of special larceny should be constituted at least.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant aiding and abetting the special larceny crime of B and C, but found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by erroneous recognition of the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for four months, the suspension of execution for two years, and the community service order 40 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On October 2, 2017, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case in collusion with B and C, the Defendant arrived at the front door of the F apartment site in the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and reported the network, and Defendant B and C committed a theft by means of cutting off the victim D’s ozone part, which was parked at the front of the Gdong parking lot. 2) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant had considered the network within the vehicle.

3. In order to establish special larceny in the case of theft of another person's property jointly with two or more persons under the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, there is a public offering as a subjective requirement and a share of action as an objective requirement.