The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of eight months, for a short of six months, and for defendants.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserts that the defendants of the court below's respective punishment (one year of imprisonment for a maximum term, six months of short term, and confiscation) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is unfair because it is too uneasible.

2. As to the assertion on the above Defendant A and the prosecutor’s argument, there are circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the nature of each of the instant offenses is not somewhat weak in light of the content, circumstances, degree of participation, etc. of each of the instant offenses; and (b) the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant offenses even though there were multiple records of juvenile protective disposition by committing larceny-related crimes; and (c) the punishment force of a fine due to an unlicensed driving; (d) the Defendant’s reflects the offense; and (e) the Defendant

Considering the above circumstances and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the records, such as the family relation, occupation, age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the punishment of the court below is deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant is reasonable, and the prosecutor's above argument is without merit.

3. On November 27, 199, the Defendant’s ex officio determination as to Defendant B constituted “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the lower judgment was pronounced, and thus, was sentenced to an irregular term of imprisonment. However, it is apparent that the Defendant did not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 years and less than the age of 19 in the first instance trial.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the defendant to be sentenced to an irregular punishment cannot be maintained as it is.

4. As such, Defendant A’s appeal is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the part on Defendant B among the judgment below on the ground of ex officio reversal as seen above, Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the above Defendant and the prosecutor’s argument on unreasonable sentencing.