Of them, the remainder of Defendant B, excluding the exemption from punishment, shall be reversed.

Defendant

B.

A. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for each of the eight-month imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutor 1) No exception to relatives of misunderstanding of facts shall apply only where the relationship between the thief offender and the owner and possessor of the damaged article is of a relative relationship.

Since the defendants stolen the stolen object is not D but D, it was possessed by H with the authority delegated by D, the case of relatives cannot be applied to the crime of special larceny of this case.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone, delegated the management of the instant hospital to H or acquired de facto possession of the goods within the instant hospital by H.

It is insufficient to view the Defendants as the owner and the possessor of the goods in the instant hospital are the victim’s spouse and lineal blood relatives. As such, the Defendants exempted the punishment for special larceny among the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in comparison with the evidence examined, the lower court’s finding and determination of the above facts are justifiable, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the judgment

However, ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the part of the judgment of the court below’s 8 pages “3.3. judgment” (hereinafter “3. conclusion: The summary of the evidence of this part of the crime is the same as the description in the summary column of the evidence of the court below, and the applicable legal provision thereof falls under Articles 331(2) and 331(1) of the Criminal Act, but the Defendants are the victims’ spouse or lineal blood relative as the owner and possessor in the instant hospital and the owner in the instant hospital, and thus, the Defendants are exempted from this part of the punishment pursuant to Articles 344 and 328(1) of the Criminal Act.

- ...... ..........

B. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s argument that sentencing was unfair should be determined 1).