All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of 10 months and fines of 100,000 won, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of 6 months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court as above, which is too unreasonable as Defendant A, is too unreasonable.

The first instance court: Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year, short of ten months, and fine of three hundred thousand won; Three months;

B. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not constitute a conspiracy with Defendant A to commit a thief, and Defendant A did not have any fact that Defendant A was seated in the place while she stolen a mixed bicycle, and only contributed to the execution of the act, such as viewing the network. However, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The court below’s sentence (a long-term eight months of imprisonment and short-term six months of imprisonment) of the court below, which was sentenced to unfair sentencing

2. Ex officio determination

A. Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. The judgment of the court below against Defendant A is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one of the concurrent offenses under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to an aggravated punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the part against Defendant A and the second judgment of the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained.

On the other hand, at the time of the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, Defendant A was sentenced to an irregular term for falling under “juvenile” under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, but it is apparent that Defendant A was no longer a juvenile under the age of 19 years in the trial. As such, the part of the first instance judgment against Defendant A among the lower judgment became no longer maintained in this respect.

B. Defendant B, as a Y student, was sentenced to an irregular term of punishment for falling under “juvenile” as stipulated in Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time the first instance judgment was declared, but it did not constitute a juvenile under the age of 19 in the first instance trial.