All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of Defendant A (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were at the time of committing the larceny of A, but it is reasonable to view that Defendant A was responsible for the crime of aiding and abetting A’s larceny rather than joint larceny in light of the details, degree, etc. of participation.

Nevertheless, the court below recognized the defendant's liability for joint larceny. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are asserted as follows: (a) In order to establish a special larceny as a so-called joint crime where two or more persons of the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act jointly stolen another’s property, there should be sharing the act of conspiracy as a subjective element and the act of implementation as an objective requirement; and (b) the act of implementation requires that there is a cooperative relationship at a time and place at a time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do837, Mar. 14, 1989). 2) It is reasonable to view that only the Defendant is liable for the crime of aiding and abetting, on the premise that A knew that he would commit larceny.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, that is, the Defendant, after being released from office on May 24, 2016, demanded a vehicle manufactured on July 25, 2016, which was the day when the Defendant was living together with A to search for a light-time car trading company on the day of the commission of the crime and demanded a vehicle manufactured on September 8, 2004, whose mileage amounting to approximately KRW 190,00km, to purchase the vehicle in his own name and ask the trading company to question whether the vehicle can be purchased on the following day after the commission of the crime, and the Defendant is a larceny.