The part concerning Defendant B in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by Defendant A (the first instance judgment against the lower judgment) on the Defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and the fine of two hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (as to the judgment of the court below No. 2), the Defendant did not steals, together with A around June 30, 2016, around 22:00.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) Each sentence (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fines for 200,000 won, confiscation, and second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and fines for 60,000 won) that the court below sentenced to the defendant unfairly unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant B ex officio, this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the offenses against the above Defendant is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the above defendant cannot be reversed.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the above defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and it will be examined below.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts, namely, ① A, an accomplice, has stolen the Defendant, who was the head of the middle school Dong in the vicinity of the Lee Sung-dong, from June to July 2016 at the lower court’s court.

At that time, a key is sticked on the Otoba, so a cream is driven by a cream, and the defendant was getting on and getting on the cream.

It is possible for A to make a false statement to the effect that “” is specifically stated, and ② to gather the Defendant.