All part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years and six months.

[Judgment on the grounds of appeal] A asserts that the sentencing of the original court (2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the first instance court, 6 months of imprisonment for the second instance court) is too unreasonable. On the other hand, the prosecutor asserts that the sentencing of the second instance court (6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the second instance court and 2 months of imprisonment for the second instance court) against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

The judgment of ex officio (part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A) was examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent trials. Each of the offenses against the defendant is in a concurrent crime relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term or amount subject to aggravated concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Each of the instant crimes against Defendant B by the Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing is that the Defendant acquired 18 cellular phoness over three occasions, and in light of the content and motive of the crime, and the social harm caused by stolen transactions, etc., the Defendant’s liability is not easy.

However, considering the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime and the crime of acquiring stolen goods for which judgment was rendered on May 23, 2014 at the same time; (b) equity with the case where the Defendant was the initial offender at the time of the instant case; (c) the fact that the Defendant was the initial offender at the time of the instant case; (d) recognition of and reflects the mistake; and (e) all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in

If so, the judgment of the court below is based on the above reasons for the reversal of the defendant A among the judgment below. Thus, the judgment of the court below is based on Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the above defendant and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against the defendant.