The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for four years, for one year and six months, for Defendant C, and for Defendant D.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A1) The crime of Paragraph (1) of the case No. 2018 Gohap239 decided on the misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “AR 1 crime”) is deemed to be “the first crime”).

(A) There is no room to take charge of sales and fund management at the time. The crime No. 3. A. 2018 Gohap239 of the instant case (hereinafter “AR 2”) is committed.

The amount of petroleum that was stolen does not reach 100,000 liters. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. C1) At the time of the misunderstanding of facts AR 2nd crime, the “comman” merely from V, an accomplice at the time of the misunderstanding of facts, following the vehicle driven by V for about two weeks upon request, and did not know whether the petroleum that was stolen from the oil pipelines was transported. Moreover, the amount of petroleum that was stolen from the above crime does not amount to 10,000 liters. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. D’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. D’s imprisonment is too unreasonable.

E1) As to the crime of paragraph (1) of the case No. 2018Dahap325 decided on the misunderstanding of facts (the Cheongju-gu Y Oil Larceny), there was no conspiracy to commit the crime with accomplices, and the fact that the oil was stolen from the oil pipelines was not known at all. However, upon X’s request, an attempt was made to establish a shocking system at the site. As to the crime of paragraph (2) of the case No. 2018Gahap325 decided on the 2018Gahap325 (the installation of oil pipeline facilities in the Seocho-gu Cheongju-gu Cheongju-gu Ga), there was no fact that there was no conspiracy to commit the crime, nor did there were any fact that there was any participation in the crime, and there was no omission between the scene of the instant case. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing

2. As to Defendant A and C’s assertion

(a) Subparagraph 2, No. 2018, 239, decided by a prosecutor ex officio in the trial on the amendment of a bill of indictment;

(b).

The facts charged are modified as stated in the following criminal facts and the third-B.

The clause 3 deleted and applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment as stated in the following criminal facts.