A. The Defendant was not involved in mistake of facts (Defendant C).

As the co-defendant B of the lower court, the Defendant sought a venue of the event as in B, and was engaged in the conduct.

Even on the day of the instant case, the event site came to the event site, and the sentence B came to the event site.

At the time of the case, the weather recommended B to return home to B, but only B entered B into the Tampet s and entered B.

Even after the Defendant came from B’s pocket book, the Defendant was not aware of his English language, and was searched by field employees, but did not conspired with B and A to commit larceny.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and Defendant C: 2 years of suspended sentence on June) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below to determine the assertion of mistake of facts (defendant C), the defendant's participation in the crime of special larceny of this case between the defendant A and Co-defendant B as stated in the court below's decision, unlike the defendant's assertion.

① The Defendant turns out that he met B in the event site on the day of the instant event, and on the other hand, both A and C asserted by the investigative agency that they met with each other, but both A and C live in the same house, and both the Defendant and B live in the same house, and they are siblingss.

② The instant crime was committed on an organized basis at a very short time. An employee at the scene A began to be asked about the paper while making inquiries, the Defendant and B also asked questions, and theft of B’s diskettes.

③ Even according to the dynasium A and B, the reason that they stolen the synasium was to enter the event site.

In other words, it was intended to enter the event site to sell luminous bars, etc. at an appropriate time, except that.