Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance, shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and ten months.

seizure Doz.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the first instance court sentenced the Defendants to the punishment (three years of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants A, and two years of imprisonment with prison labor for the Defendants B).

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, there are favorable factors for sentencing, such as: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude against his own will; (b) the victim F’s cellular phone was returned; and (c) the victim did not want punishment by mutual consent with the said victim during the trial; and (c) suffering from hepatitis C.

However, it is also recognized that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been punished several times due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and committed the instant crime on September 7, 2007, which was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and five years from the date on which the execution of the instant punishment was terminated on June 18, 2012, and there has not been more than one year since it was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and more than two times for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and more than three years for the Defendant who committed the same crime during the period

In full view of the aforementioned factors of sentencing and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances revealed in pleadings, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is deemed appropriate, and it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing against Defendant B, the Defendant’s failure to examine and seize the stolen goods ex officio and the Defendant’s failure to return the goods to the victim clearly should be sentenced by the judgment.