The judgment below

Of the defendants, the part of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the Defendant, along with the accomplice A, stolen a mobile phone by intrusioning on a mobile phone agency after destroying the entrance, etc. using dangerous articles at night. In light of the nature of the crime, the criminal liability is heavy, the Defendant prepared to commit the crime in advance with accomplices, shared the crime among accomplices, etc., and the Defendant committed the larceny again without being aware of it during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime.

However, there are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendant’s life in prison for about 10 months, which reflects his/her mistake in depth, the Defendant’s initial agreement with EsP marketing corporation and EsP marketing corporation which was the owner of a stolen mobile phone does not want punishment against the Defendant (Evidence Records No. 342, 343, 129-13, trial records No. 129-132), the Defendant appears to have a possibility of edification and improvement as university students of the early 20 seconds, and other sentencing conditions such as Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstance after the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court on each of the crimes of this case: 1. The theft crime group, general property, the theft type against the Defendant’s personal property (in case of intrusion at a place other than the real residential space, no crime is imposed, intrusion upon the victim, the victim of a structure, the scope of punishment to which the Defendant took place within the scope of punishment (3 months).