The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable as it is too uneasible to each sentence (eight months of imprisonment) declared by the court below against the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, while, on the premise that the Defendants’ respective crimes of this case constitute Type 4 (Intrusion Larceny) and Type 2 (General Larceny), among the thief groups in the sentencing guidelines, provided that the scope of the recommended punishment falls under one to three years, from one to nine months, the lower court reduced the amount of special larceny under the Criminal Act, and decided that the Defendants were punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to eight months within the scope of the applicable punishment.

B. Article 81-7(1) of the Court Organization Act provides that “The law officer shall respect the sentencing criteria when choosing the type of punishment and determining the sentence.

However, the sentencing guidelines shall not have the legal binding force, and Article 2 of the same Act provides that "where a court makes a judgment beyond the sentencing guidelines, it shall state the reasons for sentencing in the written judgment."

In other words, the sentencing criteria are effective as recommended, and if the reasons for sentencing are stated in the judgment, they may be sentenced to the exclusion from the sentencing criteria, and it is examined whether there are grounds for sentencing that can determine the sentence by exceeding the scope of the recommended punishment in the sentencing criteria.

Although the Defendants recognized each of the crimes of this case and against the mistake, the Defendants jointly committed the crime of this case, ① stolen the apologys cultivated by farmers in the harvest season on five occasions at night, and the amount of damage was not sufficient to state about 16,200,000 won, and thus, it is not good to commit the crime. ② The victims did not agree at all; ③ Defendant A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the period of imprisonment with labor for special larceny in October 196; and Defendant B was sentenced to a fine of four times in the course of larceny from October 196 to June 2014; and Defendant B was punished as a larceny around February 2015.