The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years and for one year and six months, respectively.

1. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the part that Defendant B entered or attempted to enter a family room subject to crime with Defendant A on the ground that there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the lower court found Defendant B guilty of each special larceny as stated in the judgment of the lower court related to the crime, the lower court did not render a separate verdict of innocence.

Accordingly, only Defendant B appealed against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the reason.

However, if the first instance court only found the defendant guilty of the part of the facts charged which is a simple crime, even if the defendant appealed, the appeal can be tried on the part of the acquittal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just in comparison with the judgment of the court below as to the portion which was not guilty at the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5000, Feb. 9, 2001). Thus, this part of the judgment of the court below shall be maintained as it is, since it is just

2. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, and one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination. According to the records of this case, the defendants together with the defendants try to steals the victims' property on four occasions, and to steals the victims' property on one occasion and to commit attempted crimes.

In this case, the independent crime by victim is established, and the relationship between them is reasonable to view that there is a substantive concurrent crime relationship.

Nevertheless, as the lower court committed an offense of omitting aggravated punishment in the application of statutes with respect to the Defendants, the lower court became unable to maintain any further judgment.

4. In conclusion, the court below's decision is justified for ex officio reversal.