The judgment of the court below is reversed.

1. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of one year and three months, a short term of one year, and a fine of two hundred thousand won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants: The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum term of two years, on a short term of one year and six months, and on a fine of 20,000, on a short term of one year and six months, Defendant B, and C: each of the imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year, and on a short term of ten months) on the

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence on the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Before the prosecutor's ex officio judgment as to Defendant C's assertion and judgment as to Defendant C's assertion, the court below's judgment that sentenced Defendant C's non-guilty sentence against the above Defendant was no longer maintained, since it is apparent that Defendant C was not a juvenile under the age of 19 at the time of the judgment of the court below, and at the time of the judgment of the court below, Defendant C was WW and was sentenced to an "juvenile" under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act. However, it is apparent that the above Defendant was no longer a juvenile under the age of 19.

3. Regarding the prosecutor's argument on the defendant A, B, and the prosecutor's argument on judgment on the defendant A, and the defendant A, and B's argument on unreasonable sentencing, as determined by the court below, there is a need to strictly punish the defendants in light of the fact that the defendants committed the theft of this case in a planned manner, the victims' damage recovery was not complete, and the defendant A committed each crime of this case even though the period of probation was under the period of probation due to special larceny, but there is a need to strictly punish the defendants. On the other hand, the defendant A and B still still have been 18 years old, and there is a relatively need for improvement and edification. On the other hand, some damage was discovered immediately after the theft was committed, and some damage was recovered, and the defendants are against their wrongness through detention, and the defendant A made efforts to pay damages by promising to pay indemnity against LIG insurance companies, which are the victim of the traffic accident of this case in monthly installments, and the sentence is sentenced due to the crime of this case.