The judgment below

The part of the judgment of Defendant B as to each of the crimes as set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3-b and 3-C shall be reversed.

Defendant

B.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant B: 1, 2 and 3-b as indicated in the judgment of the court below; 3-Ga; 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below; 6 months of probation; 1 year of probation; 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below; 1 year of probation; 1 year of probation and probation)

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (as to the crimes Nos. 1, 2, 3-b of the judgment of the defendant B), the defendant B was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the decision of the court below with AA, but it is apparent that the defendant was not a juvenile as of the date of the decision of the court below. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below which sentenced the non-guilty sentence for each of the crimes Nos. 1, 2, 3-b of the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

B. Determination of the Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing (the part concerning Defendant B’s crime No. 3) shows the attitude of reflecting the Defendant’s criminal act by recognizing the Defendant’s criminal act, and the agreement with the victim is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in full view of all the above circumstances, the lower court appears to have sentenced to punishment; the Defendant had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition several times due to larceny; the Defendant has been subject to statutory punishment for night structure intrusion larceny (a prison term of not more than 10 years); the background, means and methods of the instant crime; the circumstances after the instant crime was committed; and the Defendant’s age and happiness environment; and all other circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as stated in the records and arguments, such as the records and arguments of the instant case, are deemed to have been too unreasonable.

C. As to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant appears to have the attitude of reflecting the recognition of his criminal act, the agreement with the victim, and the fact that the Defendant did not have the same criminal power in addition to the one-time juvenile protective disposition for the same kind of crime is favorable to the Defendant.

(b).