Of the first and second original judgments and third original judgments, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (the first judgment of the court below: the existence of the grounds for the request for retrial) was unable to attend the trial of the court below due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant, and there is a ground for the request for retrial under Article 23-2(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning

B. Each sentence of the lower court (the first sentence: 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A and 2: Defendant A imprisonment with prison labor for August, 3: Defendant A imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and Defendant B imprisonment for 3 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine Defendant A ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

In the first instance trial, each of the judgment below against Defendant A was combined. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below against Defendant A in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one of the concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be sentenced within the scope of a sentence imposed. Thus, the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be maintained as it is.

B. Circumstances favorable to the Defendant regarding Defendant B’s grounds for appeal are as follows.

The Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected in the instant case.

On March 22, 2014, the principle of equity should also be taken into account with the case where the defendant was tried at the same time as the special larceny that became final and conclusive.

The amount that the defendant stolen is 1.3 million won in total.

Circumstances unfavorable to the defendant are as follows:

The defendant has been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months due to special larceny in 2010.

The Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, career, environment, background and result of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and pleadings, such as the circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, Defendant A.