All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charge of attempted special larceny among the facts charged in the instant case, and committed commission of larceny, such as searching stolen property for the reasons indicated in its holding.

The judgment of not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to be seen is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the time when the crime of larceny commences.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 3 years of imprisonment; Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for a year and 6 months; Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for a year and 6 months) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

A. On June 17, 2015, Defendants 1 of this part of the facts charged, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the contents of this part of the facts charged, came to the front of the Victim J, located in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group I, and Defendant B and C reported the network within K rocketing another car, and Defendant A, who discovered money and valuables into the victim’s house and discovered the victim’s presence within the front door through the third floor door door door door of the victim’s house opened with Masck, did not escape and did not commit an attempted crime.

As a result, the Defendants attempted to steal property jointly.

2) The lower court’s judgment is just based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and it is recognized that the Defendants conspired with the victim’s house to steal the property by intrusion on the victim’s house, and Defendant B and C reported the network within the passenger car, Defendant A entered the house through the third floor door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, and the victim was found to have escaped from door door door door door door door door door, and the above facts alone, there was a commencement of the commission of

On the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendants had commenced the commission of larceny, this part of the facts charged was acquitted.

(iii)..