The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized evidence 23.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Mental and physical disorder Defendant A suffered from shock disorder in military register at the time of preventing the crime of habitual larceny of this case, and thus, Defendant A was in the state of mental disorder or mental and physical disability. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment and confiscation) against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s public prosecutor (defendant B) made a concrete and consistent statement on the background leading up to specifying Defendant B as the purchaser of stolen property; and (b) the fact that he disposed of stolen property to Defendant B; (c) Defendant B made a statement to the same effect as Defendant A’s statement; (d) Defendant BF also made a statement on the circumstance leading up to specifying Defendant B as the purchaser of stolen property; and (e) Defendant B appears to have no other street store near the store in which Defendant B operated at the time of the date indicated in the facts charged for the acquisition of stolen property; and (e) Defendant B appears to have committed a crime of acquisition of stolen property through occupational business, such as the facts charged for the acquisition of stolen property through occupational business, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged for the acquisition of stolen property through occupational business of this case by violating the rules of evidence and misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A’s 1 ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the first ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to add applicable provisions to Defendant A of this case’s habitual larceny charges to Defendant A at the trial court. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A in the judgment below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant A's argument about mental disorder still is subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.