A. Although the Defendants, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, did not steals the victim’s possessor, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) Co-defendant A, the Defendants and co-defendant A, a co-defendant at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, led to all of the crimes of this case in the CCTV installed at the scene of the crime of this case; (b) the CCTV installed at the scene of the crime of this case, in which the vehicles used in the crime of larceny are white-burged vehicles; and (c) the vehicle has the characteristics of black-down at the center of the roof left side of the vehicle; and (d) the vehicle was taken a white-burged vehicle with black-furged vehicle attached at the same location as the CCTV installed at the front of the K Elementary School near the scene of the crime of this case; and (e) the said vehicle was found to have been designated as a H in relation to the crime of traffic accident; and (e) the above vehicle was found to have been found to have been used by the lower investigative agency on January 16, 2013.

B. The Defendants were punished before the same offense.