The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant C for one year.

2. The instant crime is deemed to have committed the instant crime and is highly likely to repeat the crime, considering the frequency of the crime committed on a systematic and planned basis for the petty merchants who do not have CCTV and unmanned security equipment, the frequency of the crime, method of the crime, and the amount of damage. Defendant B had the record of having received juvenile protective disposition on eight occasions due to the same kind of larceny crime including past special larceny, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving). Defendant C also received four times a suspended sentence of imprisonment or a suspended sentence of juvenile protective disposition, such as the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and Defendant B committed the instant crime on November 2, 2012. In particular, Defendant B was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor from the 31st Military Court of the Army on December 2, 2012 at the ordinary military court of the Army, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years, which became final and conclusive on December 25, 2012.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants appears to have recognized the crime of this case, and that 27 of the victims of this case among the victims of this case were the Defendant C or the Defendants’ preemptive actions with Defendant C’s efforts, the degree of the Defendants’ participation in the crime is insignificant than that of the accomplice A who voluntarily withdrawn the appeal, and the degree of Defendant C’s participation appears to be minor rather than Defendant B. In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions indicated in this case, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, background and consequence of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is somewhat inappropriate, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is reasonable.

3. The conclusion is that the defendants' appeal is reasonable, and therefore, it is in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.