The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant C and A among them shall be reversed.

Defendant

C Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and 1 year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B and C1 of mistake of facts (Defendant B) did not have inflicted an injury on the victim G at the time of committing the crime on December 2, 2017. However, the judgment of the court below that recognized the above victim as having inflicted an injury on the victim and applied for an injury by robbery by mistake of facts is erroneous. 2) The sentence of the court below (Defendant B and C: imprisonment with prison labor for four years, confiscation, and Defendant C: 10 months) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1 of the court below found that Defendant B stolen visibility at the time of the crime on December 2, 2017. However, the court below found that there was no proof, and found Defendant A guilty of attempted special larceny, Defendant C’s special larceny, and Defendant C’s special larceny assistance on the grounds that the court below acquitted Defendant A of the facts (the same purport of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant B is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts). The ground for misunderstanding of facts against the same purport is that there was an error of mistake of facts as to the facts constituting the premise for sentencing determination.

(2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and confiscation) against the Defendants in unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant B, Defendant B made the same assertion in the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the lower court rejected Defendant’s assertion on the same in detail. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable and there is no error of law by misapprehending the facts. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The sentencing criteria established by the Sentencing Commission based on Articles 81-2 and 81-6 of the Court Organization Act on the basis of the criteria for determining sentencing (hereinafter

section 2.2.