A. In relation to misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendants did not commit a theft of clothes by combining and combining facts, and did not jointly intrude into a structure, with regard to Article 1(1) of the facts charged in the instant case (special larceny and joint intrusion).

The above crime is a single crime committed by Defendant A, and Defendant B was unaware of the larceny, but all of the defendants' joint crimes were found guilty, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, Defendant B: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants alleged the same assertion as the grounds for appeal on this part at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail, following the summary of the evidence, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants’ assertion and judgment were stated in detail.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

(Defendant B is recognized as having received a verdict of innocence in the Daegu District Court 2018 High Court 2018 High Court 3096 High Court on October 11, 2018.

However, the above case was at issue when Defendant B appeared as a witness in the court of original trial and testified that “no fact was made with Defendant A and telephone calls on January 21, 2018” was at issue, and was made a false statement with the knowledge that it would be contrary to his memory.

The judgment of innocence was rendered on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude.

However, regardless of whether the above testimony of Defendant B was false or not against memory, the fact that the Defendants made the call of the Defendants around January 13, 2018 is based on objective evidence.