The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and two months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year.

except that this shall not apply.

In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) and the fact that the defendant A and his defense counsel reflects the wrongness of the defendant, the defendant's care center was left to the care center and it was difficult to maintain his livelihood from the care center, and most of the thefts were returned to the victims, etc., the sentence of the court below that sentenced 10 months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the crime of this case committed by the public prosecutor was committed by the defendants who committed the crime of this case jointly with others' property and it is not good that the crime of this case was committed repeatedly. Defendant A had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition due to the theft crime; Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months for a short term of one year and one year and four months for special larceny, etc. on January 17, 2014; and Defendant B committed the crime of this case on February 24, 2015 after the execution of the sentence was completed; Defendant B committed each of the crimes of this case even though he had the record of receiving juvenile protective disposition due to special larceny; Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than ten months; Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for probation and observe protection; and Defendant B was sentenced to a community service order of 120 hours for each of the crimes of this case.

The reasons for an ex officio appeal shall be considered ex officio prior to the judgment.

Stolens that have been seized, and whose reasons for restoration to the victim are apparent, shall be restored to the victim by judgment.

According to the records, the first unit of seized “S/N” was stolen by the Defendants from the victim’s name or influence, and the second unit of seized “S/N” - the first unit of seized “S/N” - Defendant B’s stolen stolen goods from the victim’s N. Thus, there is clear reason to return such stolen goods to the above victims.

Therefore, the above seized articles shall be returned to the victims by judgment under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.