The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

Defendant

B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment for a maximum term, ten months of short term) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts (the charge of larceny of night buildings) did not seem to have been ambiguous to share sales proceeds by stealing mobile phones from Defendant A, etc. in advance. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the Defendant’s ground of appeal ex officio, the Defendant was a public health worker, and the Defendant was a juvenile as provided in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the judgment below’s declaration, but the Defendant became an adult in the trial. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the Defendant to a non-guilty sentence under the Juvenile Act

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, Defendant B made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail in the “judgment on Defendant B’s assertion” and found Defendant B guilty of the theft of night residence. If the judgment of the court below is closely compared with the evidence adopted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the above Defendant, and there is no error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The above assertion by Defendant B is without merit, and there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment on unfair sentencing, and the sentencing by the court of first instance does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court: (a) details and scale of the instant crime; (b) the fact that the instant crime was committed; (c) the victim did not receive a letter from the victim; and (d) constitutes a repeated crime of the same kind; and (c) the fact that