The part concerning the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant 1.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (No. 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of No. 1 in the judgment of the court below, No. 2 in the judgment of the court below, No. 3 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of No. 2 in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions in comparison with the judgment of the court below on the part of the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and where the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). This court did not submit new sentencing data, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the crime of obstructing the exercise of the right of this case is deemed to be beyond the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all favorable factors of the defendant, including the fact that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case among various sentencing factors, and the fact that the defendant should consider equity with the case of habitual larceny at the same time when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, by concealing the location of the vehicle for which the defendant set up a right to collateral security was prevented from exercising the right of the victim, and that the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances of the crime, and that the damage has not yet been recovered.

The defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted.

3. We examine ex officio the crimes of No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance prior to each judgment of the court below.

The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant were pronounced, and each of the defendants appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals.

The crime of No. 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant and the crime of No. 2 in the judgment of the court of second instance.