The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B (two years of probation, probation order and 80 hours of community service order in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (two years of probation, probation order, and 80 hours of community service order in October) and the above sentence sentenced to Defendant B are too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining ex officio (part concerning Defendant B) the grounds for appeal against Defendant B and the prosecutor’s reasons for appeal against Defendant B, the lower court applied Articles 364 and 362(1) of the Criminal Act to Defendant B’s crime of acquiring stolen property through occupational negligence. Article 364 of the Criminal Act provides that “A person who commits a crime of Article 362 due to occupational negligence or gross negligence shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won. However, since Article 364 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who commits a crime of Article 362 due to occupational negligence or gross negligence shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding five million won, the lower court sentenced Defendant B to a suspended sentence of not more than six months, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the part

B. Although the prosecutor's judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing against the defendant A was made on the grounds that the defendant A violated his depth by recognizing the error, and there was no criminal records other than the punishment of one fine for the larceny crime of this case in 2001, and the defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting his parent while living conditions are difficult. However, the crime of larceny of this case by the defendant A is an employee at a mobile phone store managed by the victim D, and the market value of the victim’s possession kept in the store six times in total by using an opportunity to neglect the victim’s surveillance is equivalent to the total amount of 18,651,800 won.