Defendant in the judgment of the first instance and the judgment of the second instance, excluding the compensation order, and the third judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal against the Defendants ( ① Defendant C: 10 months of the first judgment, 6 months of the second judgment, 3 months of the third judgment, 1 and 4 months of the second judgment, 3 months of the third judgment, 3 months of the third judgment, 3: Defendant B: 2 and 1 year and 4 months of the second judgment) are too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants in the ex officio judgment against Defendant C and A, the appellate court of the first or third appellate court decided to hold a joint trial by combining each of the appellate courts of the first or third appellate judgment. Each of the crimes in the first or third appellate judgment against Defendant C and each of the crimes in the second and third appellate judgment in the judgment of the third and the third appellate court shall be sentenced to a single sentence in all of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the part against the Defendants in the first or second and third appellate judgment cannot be maintained.

3. It is recognized that the crime of this case against Defendant B committed the crime of this case by intrusion upon residence eight times, which stolen the sum of money and valuables 19.6 million won, and that the nature of the crime was poor, that juvenile protective disposition was issued six times due to the same crime, that substantial part of the damage was not recovered, and that the victims did not receive any tolerance.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the sentence of the lower court is deemed to be too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was committed too late and commits the crime; (b) the sentencing balance with other Defendants; and (c) the Defendant’s age, family relationship, environment, etc.

4. According to the conclusion, the part concerning Defendant C and A among the judgment of the first, second, and third of the judgment of the court below, on the grounds that there exist grounds for ex officio reversal in the case of Defendant C and A, under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the allegation of unfair sentencing, the appeal in the case of Defendant B is well-grounded, and under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each of the appeals is reversed, and it