The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months, and by imprisonment with labor of Defendant B in one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the guilty part in the judgment below), Defendant A was guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though Defendant A did not habitually file another’s property in collaboration with Defendant B, even though Defendant A did not habitually file another’s property, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and guilty part of the judgment below), Defendant B’s charges of habitual larceny Nos. 4, 5 in the annexed crime list Nos. 4, and 5 in the annexed crime list, and Defendant B did not habitually file another’s property in collaboration with Defendant A, and the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension

(c)

According to the prosecutor's evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and not guilty part of the Defendants), the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the charge of a theft or attempted theft of property amounting to KRW 224,080,000 on a total of 22 occasions, such as the list Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 24, as stated in the annexed crime list Nos. 1 through 3, 6, and 24.

2. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below duly examined and adopted the evidence, in particular, the investigation report (time, method of crime, etc.), CCTV photographs (Evidence Record No. 482), investigation report (Evidence Record No. 482), and Defendant B’s face can be identified with cctv photographs to confirm whether the victim H’s house is unfolded, and Defendant A’s face can be identified with cctv photographs. Defendant A’s 101 Dong-gu apartment 101, Seocho-gu Seoul, with the front door and 338 Dong apartment.