The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant D and A shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

D. At the end of one year and two months, Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of Defendant D’s previous conviction relation, the period and frequency of the crime, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following facts: (i) In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, Defendant A, who was punished for the crime of acquiring stolens, only one time, and the method of committing the crime of acquiring stolens, even though the habituality of acquiring stolens can be recognized, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty only for the crime of acquiring stolens, not habitually, while acquitted the habituality of acquiring stolens; and (ii) by misapprehending the legal principles, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the assertion of Defendant D and the prosecutor’s authority, the part on habitual acquisition of stolen stolen goods among the facts charged against the Defendants is a crime falling under Articles 363(1) and 362(1) of the Criminal Act comprehensively, and the statutory penalty is “ imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than ten years.” According to Article 32(1)3 of the former Court Organization Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016) of the former Court Organization Act, cases falling under imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of not less than one year shall be judged by the district court and its branch court of the first instance. However, the judgment of the court below that judged by a single judge as the first instance court is erroneous in the misapprehension of the jurisdiction of right. Thus, the part on Defendant D and the part on destruction against Defendant A cannot be exempted.

However, Defendant D and Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, which is below.