All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

There was no conspiracy between misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles against B and thief, and the defendant committed the crime of this case alone.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence of the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the circumstances properly explained by the court below, the court below's judgment that found the defendant to have committed the larceny of this case in collusion with B is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

The sentencing on each argument of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors on the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the sentencing of the first instance court is respected.