The defendant A and the second judgment of the court of first instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of three years and ten months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the first judgment of the court below), the imprisonment of three years (the first judgment of the court below), the imprisonment of one year (the second judgment of the court below), and the imprisonment of one year and six months) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (in relation to Defendant A’s appeal), we examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A.

Defendant

A filed an appeal against the whole of the judgment below, and the trial court decided to consolidate each of the above appeals cases.

However, the crime of the first and second original judgment is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of them must be sentenced at the same time. Thus, the defendant A and the second original judgment among the first and the second original judgment cannot be maintained any longer.

3. The lower court sentenced Defendant B to one year and six months of imprisonment in consideration of the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances and favorable circumstances.

In full view of the following factors: (a) the conditions for sentencing in the trial; (b) the Defendant did not know himself during the period of repeated crime after having completed the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny; (c) the Defendant committed the instant stolen goods intermediary crime without being aware of it; (d) the Defendant disposed of and disposed of the stolen precious metals for A; and (e) provided the cause why A repeatedly prevents a special larceny crime; and (e) the form of punishment, etc., the judgment of the lower court is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion; or (e) it is deemed that the lower court’s judgment is unreasonable to maintain its sentencing.

In addition, considering the circumstances and results of the crime of this case, the sentence of the court below is proper, and it is not recognized that it is unfair because it is too unreasonable, considering the circumstances after the crime of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. The appeal by Defendant B is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by Defendant B is without merit.