All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to special larceny), the Defendants were placed in a cart with the intent to pay and purchase the goods. They did not calculate A, and the Defendants were aware of this fact out of the calculation unit. As such, the Defendants did not steal the goods in collaboration with A.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, Defendant C: Imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, namely, ① both the Defendants and accomplice A made a statement to the effect that they recognized the special larceny of this case in the court below’s case. ② According to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants were aware of the fact before they left the Mat after having left the Mat after having left the Mat, and even if there is a legitimate intent to purchase the goods, it is reasonable for the Defendants to pay for the Mat to be aware of the fact. However, in light of the fact that the Defendants returned to the Republic of Korea with stolen goods without any specific resistance, it is sufficiently recognized that they committed the theft of goods jointly with A, as stated in the facts constituting a crime

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment, and comprehensively considering the factors revealed during the instant pleadings, the lower court.