The decision of the court below on the ground that the remainder except the dismissed portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Each sentence (No. 1: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) that the court below sentenced to Defendant A by each of the court below is unfair.

B. Defendant B’s each sentence (the first sentence: 2 years of suspended sentence in August, 120 hours of community service, 2 years of suspended sentence in April, and 80 hours of community service, 2 years of suspended sentence in April, and 80 hours of community service) that the court below sentenced to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C’s each sentence (the first instance judgment: 2 years of suspended sentence in October, 120 hours of community service, 2 years of suspended sentence in April, 80 hours of community service, 80 hours of community service) that the lower court sentenced to Defendant C is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's first instance court's each sentence sentenced to the Defendants is too unhued and unfair.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio and the prosecutor, the first and second court rendered a judgment after examining the Defendants respectively, and the Defendants filed an appeal against each of the above judgments, and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the first instance judgment, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. The first and second offenses against the Defendants are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and they should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment subject to aggravated concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants cannot be exempted from all reversal.

In addition, among the facts charged by the prosecutor of the first instance judgment (2012 group 3349 case), “from that time to July 31, 2012, the victim-owned mobile phone amounting to KRW 484,00,000,000 in the market price as indicated in the annexed crime list” (section 11-13 in the judgment of the original court) is as follows: (a) the part of the facts charged by the prosecutor of the first instance judgment from January 2, 2012 to July 31, 2012 is as follows.