The judgment of the court below (including the portion not guilty) shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with labor of six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (Improper Sentencing) had caused the robbery of this case to be committed in a state of full recovery, and Defendant A had agreed with the victim of the robbery of this case, which was smoothly agreed with the victim of the robbery of this case, and was seriously against the victim and the defendant A’s fault.

Considering the above circumstances, the sentence of the lower court (three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s (Defendant B)’s statement and witness’s statement, Defendant B conspired to commit the robbery with Defendant A and the robbery, and the fact that Defendant B committed the robbery of this case can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby acquitted Defendant B of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) that is unfair as it is too unhutiled.

2. Determination:

A. On the fourth trial date of the appellate trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to change the part of “1,50,000 won in cash owned by the injured party” to “123,00 won in cash owned by the injured party,” among the existing facts charged as to the injury of robbery against the accused at the fourth trial date of the appellate trial, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court upon permission.

On the other hand, since the insulting part against Defendant A was sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the above facts charged, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court, since the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the defendant B, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

B. The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts reveals that the Defendant B conspiredd to commit a crime of robbery with the Defendant, or attempted to commit a robbery by the Defendant A at the time of committing robbery, by explaining detailed circumstances in the 9th 2 criminal conduct from the 8th 2 criminal conduct to 17 criminal conduct of the judgment.