The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and by a fine of 3,00,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding (special theft and intrusion of structure) the Defendant, who was tried to be tried separately, entered the “Fhop” operated by the victim without any doubt as he was his own, and discovered A and B who had been drinking at the time when he left the site after leaving the site after having been ordered to sprinkn from A to sprinkn, and used them to put the remaining beer after receiving A’s instructions and put them into the cooling house and put them into the rest after being instructed by A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that the defendant did not play a role in the Gu of A, or did not have a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The punishment of the first and second court (one year of imprisonment and three million won of fine) on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

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

The first and second original judgments were sentenced to each of the defendants, and the defendant filed an appeal against the first and second original judgments, and the court decided to hold the above two cases together.

Each crime in the judgment of the first and second court against the defendant is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the first and second court cannot be maintained as it is.

Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In the establishment of a joint principal offender with respect to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the co-principal's intent is to cooperate not only with the accomplice in advance, but also with the implied view.