All of the judgment of the court below are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing)

A. Defendant (the first instance judgment) 1) erroneous determination of facts (the thief on the victim G) (the thief on the thief on the thief on G), but the thalf on the thalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf on the stalf

B. In light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the victims’ damage was not completely recovered, and the fact that the Defendant received juvenile protective disposition due to the same criminal conduct, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of probation, and community service order 200 hours) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced the defendant guilty, after completing a separate hearing against the defendant, and the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court of second instance, and the court decided to hold concurrent hearings against the above two appeals cases. Each of the offenses against the defendant in the judgment of first and second shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the term of punishment, which increased concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent offenses in accordance with the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the part of the judgment of the court of second instance among the defendants

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.