The guilty part against Defendant B is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

. Prosecutors;

A. misunderstanding the legal principles, as the Defendants were in charge of transporting home appliances, recognizing the instant crime and play a role in transporting them, the intent of joint processing and the act of practice are recognized, and a joint principal offender is established.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: imprisonment for 8 months, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, 120 hours of community service order, confiscation, Defendant B’s imprisonment for 8 months) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio (guilty part against Defendant B) prior to the prosecutor’s judgment on the grounds for appeal. According to the records, the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment by aiding and abetting fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on April 10, 2020. The above judgment is acknowledged to have been finalized by the withdrawal of the defendant’s appeal on January 14, 2021. Since each crime of the judgment of the court below against the defendant and the above crime of aiding and abetting fraud are concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to the relationship between the defendant and the crime of aiding and abetting fraud after Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the crime of aiding and abetting fraud, the court shall consider equity with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously, and determine the sentence by examining whether to exempt the reduction of punishment. The court below, without considering the above circumstances, determined the sentence without determining the sentence.

3. The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of the part of the facts charged that the Defendants participated in each fraud committed in detail as a principal offender in the lower judgment, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for the determination thereof.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that the above facts charged are not likely to be reasonable;

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of the above facts charged cannot be seen as having been made.