A. The lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, and Defendant B: 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the Defendant B’s confession, investigator U and the victim’s respective statements, seized articles, and seizure records, etc., the Defendants were found to have stolen the victim’s property by combining them on March 11, 2017. However, Defendant B did not prove that the Defendants participated in the Defendant A’s criminal act and committed the theft of the victim’s property jointly with the Defendants, without any reasonable doubt.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts is erroneous and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (i.e., special larceny on March 11, 2017) 1) The facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial should be proven by the prosecutor, and the judge should be convicted with evidence having probative value sufficient to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, the interest of the Defendant should be determined.

2) The lower court determined otherwise, in light of the following: (a) although the Defendants made a statement to the effect that they made a confession in the police, the Defendants’ statement in this part of the facts charged cannot be admitted as evidence by denying the content; (b) the Defendants’ statement or U’s statement was insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged in light of the fact that there was evidence corresponding to the facts charged, but all of the pertinent statements were not specific; and (c) the details of the protocol of seizure and the list of seizure are insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged.