The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (for defendant A, the term of imprisonment for a maximum of three years, the term of two years and six months, and the term of two years and six months, and the short-term two years) of the lower court is too heavy;

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s argument that the sentencing of Defendant B’s crime of robbery was unfair in the course of gathering and committing robbery, and Defendant B suffered serious injury to the victim K in the course of committing the robbery, and the crime was committed, such as cutting off the clothes of the said victim, detained in the telecom, etc.

In addition, the defendant B committed the crime of this case without being able to do so even though he had a record of juvenile protection disposition several times.

However, Defendant B confessions the instant crime and reflects the wrongness, there is no record of criminal punishment, and is an age juvenile.

At the trial of the party, Defendant B agreed with the victim of the robbery and agreed that the guardian of the defendant can lead the defendant.

In addition, considering all factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of the case, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment against the defendant is judged to be unfair.

B. The sentencing of Defendant A’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is based on statutory penalty, and the judgment of discretion is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

It is unfair to maintain the first-class sentencing judgment in full view of the data newly discovered in the course of the appellate court's sentencing hearing.