The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

, however, the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is unreasonable because the punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, and six months of imprisonment for the Defendants B) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination: (a) the statutory penalty of habitual special larceny as indicated in the judgment of the court below is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than 6 months but not more than 15 years; and (b) the statutory penalty of special larceny as indicated in the judgment of the court below is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than 10 years; (c) the court below should have sentenced Defendant A, who did not have any legal grounds for mitigation, to a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than 6 months; and (d) so, it constitutes a case where the application

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants' assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the evidence admitted by the court is the same as the corresponding column of the original judgment, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions pertaining to criminal facts A: Criminal Act, Articles 332 and 331(2) and (1) B: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A with reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act: It is reasonable to pronounce a sentence in that he/she again commits the instant crime even though he/she had been punished several times as a larceny-related crime.

However, the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case, the damaged articles were returned to the victim and agreed with the victim, the frequency of the crime was limited once, and the value of the damaged articles caused by the crime of this case is not so big.