A. Defendant A misunderstanding of facts on or around January 18, 2015, Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A1”) went to the former State in a free market located in the opposite Dong in Jin-si. On the following day, Defendant A was able to talk with and take meals for Defendant B again after the following day. Defendant A did not interfere with each thief in collaboration with Defendant B, as indicated in [Attachment List 19,20] No. 19, and 20] attached to the judgment of the court below. 2) The sentence of the court below (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) with labor is too unreasonable.

C. According to the evidence submitted by a prosecutor of mistake of facts, Defendant A committed each special larceny listed in the annexed Table 1 and 2 of the judgment below in collaboration with Defendant B, and the Defendants committed each special larceny listed in the annexed Table 1 and 2 of the judgment below. It is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants committed each special larceny listed in subparagraphs 3 through 18 of the same Table of Crimes. 2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misconception of facts between the parties

A. Defendant A asserted that Defendant A had the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected Defendant A’s assertion based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, and recognized that Defendant A had committed each special larceny as stated in the attached Table 19,20 of the lower judgment, and convicted Defendant A of the charge.

Considering the reasoning of the judgment below and the records of this case closely, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and it is not recognized that there is an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant A.

B. In a case where there is no direct evidence, such as a witness’s statement, etc., of the prosecutor’s allegation of mistake, the facts charged are true without any reasonable doubt by applying logical rules and empirical rules to indirect facts recognized by legitimate evidence.