The judgment below

The part of the case against the defendant against the defendant is reversed, and the defendant H and I are respectively liable for compensation by the court below.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court is too excessive and unfair (the Defendant clearly stated that only unfair sentencing is the fact that only one of the sentencing is the fact at the first trial date). 2. Determination on February 1, 200

A. Circumstances favorable to the defendant regarding the reasons for appeal are as follows.

The defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual agreement with 18 victims in the case of the party.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

The defendant committed a crime systematically in collaboration with other accomplices.

The defendant repeatedly committed a crime against many victims, and the amount of damage is high.

Since each of the crimes of this case committed larceny by entering the victim's residence, the victims seem to have suffered severe mental stress.

The defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 5 million for the same crime in 2006 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year, and a sentence of one year for imprisonment for a year in 2007.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sex, career, environment, circumstances, and result of the crime, including the fact that the Defendant denied each of the crimes in this case at the lower court and recognized the crimes in the first instance court, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, in view of all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the part of the compensation order for H and I as to the applicant H and I, the applicant H and I of the lower court’s compensation submitted an agreement with the Defendant at the trial and stating that they would not want to be punished by the Defendant. As such, the existence or scope of the Defendant’s compensation liability against the said applicant constitutes a case where it is not clear.

Therefore, this part of the compensation order can not be maintained as it is.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Thus, Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applicable.