Defendant

All of the appeal filed by A and the appeal filed by the Prosecutor against Defendant B shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendants were aware of the iron safe, which had been located inside the house of E, and used to threaten F and assault F. However, the act of theft was committed on the ground that the above imprisonment without prison labor was committed by leaving it inside the door. Therefore, this part of the crime constitutes a crime of attempted robbery, not a quasi robbery, but a crime of attempted robbery. However, the lower court determined this as a quasi robbery. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the timing of the crime of robbery or by misapprehending of legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the lower court did not so, it is unreasonable that the sentence (two years and six months of imprisonment) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment) who was sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 160 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether the crime of quasi-bruption against Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is based on the acceptance of larceny (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2004Do5074, Nov. 18, 2004). Meanwhile, larceny infringes another’s possession and moves property under the actual control of himself/herself or a third party, and does not require any transfer or concealment of property at a place in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do476, Apr. 23, 191; 2008Do6080, Oct. 23, 2008). According to the evidence duly examined by the court of the lower court, the Defendants opened the entrance door that had been used in the house in the house of E in order to steal property, and discovered the Defendants’ inside the house and the entrance door that had been used in the house of No. 1950, Mar. 23, 2008.