beta
Text
Defendant
The entire judgment of the court below against A (excluding the part concerning the application for compensation among the judgment of the court of first instance) and Defendant S.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants’ unreasonable sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court’s sentence against Defendant A, for five years, for one year and six months, for each of the first instance court’s punishment, and for Defendant S, for four years and six months, for each of the first instance court’s punishment, and for one year and six months, for each of the third and a half years, for each of the first instance court’s punishment.
B. Prosecutor (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles against Defendant A: As to habitual special larceny committed by the Defendant in collaboration with T and U and from the end of September 2013 to the end of November 2013, 2013, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor reveals that the Defendant, in collaboration with T and U, has stolen 150,000 liters via 50 times as stated in the facts charged. Nevertheless, it is erroneous to recognize the amount of the stolen petroleum by the first instance court below and the frequency of the relevant crime to be smaller than that of the petroleum recorded in the facts charged. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence against Defendant S is too weak.
2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.
First of all, in the case of Defendant A, the judgment of the court below Nos. 1, 2, and 3 against the above Defendant was rendered, and both the above Defendant filed an appeal, and this court decided to jointly deliberate on the appeal case.
In addition, in the case of Defendant S, the judgment of the first and third court against the above Defendant was rendered, and both the above Defendant filed an appeal, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of all the appeals cases.
However, each of the judgment below's respective crimes to be combined are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act, so the above judgment below cannot be maintained as it is.
In addition, in relation to the judgment of the court of first instance at the trial, the prosecutor is under the name of the defendants.