All judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years and for two years, respectively.

seizure.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., both types of punishment) that the first instance court sentenced against the Defendants (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for four years and confiscation, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for two years and six months and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants’ ex officio, the Defendants’ name of the crime against the Defendants was “Habitual Special Larceny” from “Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,” and the applicable provisions of Articles 5-4(6) and (1), 331(1), (2), 330, and 342 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes were applied for changes in the contents of each change, and the judgment of the court of the first instance was no longer maintained, since this court permitted the changes in the contents of the judgment.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance court is reversed under Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows, without examining the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.

[Grounds for the judgment used] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court and the summary of the evidence are identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for correcting " October 6, 2014" as " October 3, 2014," which is listed in [Attachment 28] Nos. 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. The Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 332, 331 (1) and (2), 330, and 342 of the Criminal Act; and

1. A aggravated defendant for a repeated crime: Article 35 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants: The reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act are as follows. The Defendants invaded another’s residence by destroying or destroying a crime prevention window, and habitually stolen property.