The judgment below

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

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When considering various circumstances against Defendant A, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in a state of mental and physical disability with depression and military register barriers.

(2) Since the Defendant, by assault or intimidation, has to take part in the instant crime, the Defendant’s act constitutes a forced act under Article 12 of the Criminal Act and cannot be punishable.

(3) When considering the various circumstances on the accused of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. All of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected by Defendant A, the fact that the Defendant is suffering from urology, etc., and that B agreed with the victim of the crime list (I) in the annexed Form No. 1 of the court below.

However, the crime of this case is a case where the defendant habitually stolen another person's property over 23 occasions, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the method of crime, the scale of damage, etc., and even if the defendant has been punished several times, the defendant committed the crime of this case. In addition, considering the unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case independently by himself does not reach an agreement between the victims of the crime log table (Ⅱ) attached to the court below and the trial, and other sentencing conditions including the defendant's age, character, behavior and family environment, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. In addition, since the court below sentenced the defendant to the minimum punishment that can be sentenced to punishment by law after mitigation of volume, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Defendant B (1) prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio judgment, the Prosecutor examined the Defendant’s grounds for appeal ex officio, and the Defendant’s appeal against the first instance court.