All convictions against Defendant C among the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

ARTICLE 1.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence of the lower judgment (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for April, and No. 2: Imprisonment with labor for October) by Defendant C is unreasonable.

B. The punishment of Defendant AJ Decision 2 (F.C. 6 months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) Of the judgment of the court of first instance on the misunderstanding of facts, with respect to the embezzlement charges against Defendant A, B, and C, it is obvious that 6 costs of the mobile phone except for one mobile phone recovered from U have been supplied to Defendant A, B, and C, the above 6 costs of the mobile phone have not yet been recovered, and 1 unit has been recovered from Defendant C’s provoking, and U has received the above mobile phone name from the person in whose name the mobile phone was not lost in Twitter.

In light of the fact that the defendant A, B, and C did not disclose the circumstances, even if he fully recognized that he embezzled six mobile phone units of the contact with the victim, the court below found the defendant A, B, and C not guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for April; two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for six months; two million won of fine; and Defendant C: four months of imprisonment with prison labor for four months) of the first sentence of sentencing is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. As the judgment of ex officio (the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant C) and the judgment of the court of first instance appealed by Defendant C and the prosecutor, the judgment of the court of second instance and the judgment of the court of second instance appealed by Defendant C, each of the two cases appealed in the previous trial, the crime of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant C and the crime of the resolution of the original judgment of the court of second instance against Defendant C were concurrent crimes under the former part of Article

In such a case, it is necessary to simultaneously render a judgment in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Code and sentence one punishment. Therefore, each conviction against Defendant C among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

However, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake on the part of innocence against Defendant C is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. The Prosecutor's misunderstandings the Defendant A, B, and C.