The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Defendant of the Prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that the Defendants’ existing method of crime and method of crime in the part of innocence are similar to that of the Defendants, Defendant A’s sufficient location was discovered at the place of crime, and the Defendants’ vehicle used for the crime passed through the transmitting elementary school, which is a place at a distance of about 3 km from the scene of crime and about November 16, 2015, the Defendants committed the crimes listed in the annexed list of crimes (hereinafter “crime list”) Nos. 1 and 3 annually.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Each sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years and 6 months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants are deemed too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant B’s sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On October 6, 2015, the summary of this part of the facts charged is habitually combined with the Defendants, and around 19:00 on October 6, 2015, Defendant B reported the gap in the victim’s M&D L building 301 in the Frane vehicle. Defendant A, through a strong window with a bee-crad, where the Plaintiff gets on the apartment, intruded into the house through the apartment, and then cut off a precious metal of approximately KRW 10 million, including a net gold dust, and then cut off the house. From around 18:30 on November 16, 2015 to around 20:0, the Defendants reported the gap in the victim’s non-victimy building 403 to the victim’s building 403, the victim’s door-to-door Building 300,000 on the apartment pipe, and Defendant B 3,000,000 on the apartment pipe inside the apartment pipe.

2) The lower court’s judgment: (a) the sufficient volume taken at the scene of the crime as set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the List of Offenses is similar to the volume set forth in paragraphs 2, 4 through 9 of the List of Offenses.