All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not intend to engage in the act of larceny 1 in [Attachment 2017 Highest 1078 [Attachment 1] in the judgment of the court below, and D became aware of it after having independently engaged in the act of larceny. Defendant 1 did not move at the time of the act of larceny 2 or 5 in the crime list and the act of larceny 2017 Highest 2137 [2 or 6] in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the act of larceny 2 or 6 in this case”), and it was evident that D would not participate in the act of larceny, and driving a vehicle only after making it clear that D would not participate in the act of larceny. Even if D’s act of larceny 2 or 5 in the judgment of the court below, it can be found guilty.

However, the judgment of the court below which judged the defendant as a joint principal offender for the thief crime is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, D’s statements, CCTV images, etc. at the nine-time trial date of the lower trial, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charges of larceny of this case on the part of the reasoning of the lower judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the charges of larceny of this case, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although it can be recognized that the Defendant was sharing the thief in a temporary cooperative relationship between the Defendant and D, by driving the vehicle, entering the vehicle, and moving the vehicle to the scene of the crime, and moving D again, by moving D to the place, etc.

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

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, the lower court’s judgment and the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant is D.