The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and by a fine of 300,000 won.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants on the summary of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants (one year of imprisonment with labor for Defendant A and a fine of 300,000 won, eight months of imprisonment with labor for Defendant B and fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination with respect to Defendant A, Defendant A may be recognized as having been sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on October 24, 2014 by the Suwon District Court for occupational embezzlement, etc. and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 19, 2015. The crime of each of the crime and the crime of occupational embezzlement for which the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to punishment for each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below, taking into account equity with the case where the judgment of the court below is to be rendered simultaneously pursuant to the former part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

3. The Defendant’s appeal against Defendant B was committed against and against the time of and against the Defendant’s criminal act; the Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment other than that sentenced to a fine for violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act on March 2015; and even if his age has yet to be taken into account, the instant criminal act committed by the Defendant, jointly with A, etc. eight times in cash, 9.8 million won, tools, implements, means, means, results, etc.; the Defendant driving a stolen camba without a driver’s license; the nature of the relevant crime is not good; the Defendant did not agree with the victims or did not make efforts to recover damage; the Defendant had the record of having been suspended from the probation office due to special larceny on April 2012; the Defendant had the record of having been sentenced to suspension of indictment by the probation office due to special larceny; the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means, results, etc. of the criminal act; the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable.

4. Accordingly, the part of the judgment below against Defendant A is above.