Defendant

1. A. The judgment below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From among the sentencing of the Defendants, Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and April 1: Defendant C with prison labor for a period of two years: Two years;

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendants embezzled 42,803 semiconductor pin-finished goods owned by the victim company, and thereby acquitted the Defendants. 2) Sentencing and light of sentencing.

2. Determination

A. According to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, the defendants’ conviction of this part of the occupational embezzlement can be found in light of the following: (a) the prosecutor’s argument of mistake of facts is examined; (b) the defendants’ legal statement at the trial and reinforcement evidence, including AB’s legal statement.

Therefore, we accept the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts.

B. We examine the two parties’ assertion of unfair sentencing, and in light of the background and method of each of the instant crimes and the amount of damage, etc., the liability for the relevant crimes is gravely unfavorable to the Defendants.

However, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendants and the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the Defendants led to the entire confession of each of the crimes in this case, the victim test was received, the Defendant A did not have any record of criminal punishment in the past, and Defendant C did not have any record of criminal punishment exceeding the past, and Defendant C did not have any record of criminal punishment in the past, the amount of punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, each of the defendants' arguments in the imposition of sentence are with merit, and prosecutor's sentencing and warning are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again after pleading, since both the prosecutor's appeal on the part of innocence and the defendants' appeal on the guilty part are with merit.

[The reasons why the judgment was written].