2. We examine the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing with respect to the defendants of the judgment, and this case is true that the defendants did not return to the owner the mobile phone left by the taxi passengers, and the defendants do not return it to the owner, and the defendant's act of preventing possession from committing the crime of embezzlement of stolen goods, and furthermore, it is true that the crime is not good to commit the crime.

However, in full view of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed unfair, as it is deemed unfair, since it is deemed that the Defendants committed the crime of this case, without deep consideration as to their actions, by pursuing only the benefits in front of the difficult economic form, and without deep consideration as to their actions, the benefits acquired from the crime of this case are relatively small sums; there is no power to commit the crime of this case; and there is no record of criminal punishment heavier than that of suspended execution; and there is no other history of criminal punishment as to the crime of this case.

3. In conclusion, the appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is clear that "I" of the 7th decision of the court below is a clerical error of "Defendant I", and thus, it shall be corrected under Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.