A. The sentence of one-year imprisonment imposed by the lower court by Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) purchase of the waterway pumps, etc. stolen by Defendant A by mistake of fact is R as her husband, and even if Defendant B purchased the waterway pumps, etc. from Defendant A, the above Defendant did not know that the above goods were stolen, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. (2) The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and the sentence of two years suspension of execution, which was sentenced by the court below,

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of Defendant A, and the fact that Defendant A reflects his wrong, although it is recognized that the above Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even though he had been punished for the same kind of crime. Although the victim was majority due to each of the crimes of this case and the above Defendant did not make any effort to recover from damage, considering the above Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the circumstances before and after the crime, the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by Defendant A is without merit.

B. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the 1st judgment of mistake of facts as to Defendant B, the following facts and circumstances can be acknowledged.

① Since around 2007, R, the husband of the Defendant B and the above Defendant, has operated the secondhand goods together. From around 201, from around 201, the name of the business operator was transferred to I, and the business operator was operated as Defendant B, and the secondhand goods was operated as Defendant B.

② Defendant B came to know of Defendant A, who was living in the same kind of neons from early 2012, while doing water trading, and Defendant A was about seven million won over several occasions.