The part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for nine years, and for seven years, Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The sentence sentenced to the first and second instance judgment (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for nine years and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for eight months) by Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant AA’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not know that B did not pay money at the victim’s expense, and even if he did not share the intent of joint enforcement or the share of the act of execution, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of special larceny.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

B) The sentence sentenced to the first and second original sentence (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for 7 years and the second sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for 5 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court acquitted the Defendants of the charge of murder, even if the Defendants were to have had the misunderstanding of the facts or the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, at least the willful negligence of murder committed against the victim.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the Defendants, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

As to the whole judgment of the court below, the Defendants filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance decided to concurrently examine each of the above appeals cases.

As long as the facts constituting the crime of each of the above judgment below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, they should be judged at the same time and sentenced to a single punishment, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the argument of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on the judgment of the court of first instance by Defendant A and the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case, and

B. Defendant A’s No. 1.