A. Fact-finding ① The Defendant is not Kmphy.

② At the time of the serious criminal facts in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s female-friendly job offers DB’s telephone calls and several staff members of KP are present at the scene, and there was no call contact for the Defendant to the assistant staff.

③ Even if the Defendant committed the above act, the lower court erred by applying Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act even though Article 4(2) of the same Act should apply to such act.

In other words, Article 4 (1) of the same Act provides that "a person who has joined or acted as a member of an organization or group aimed at committing a crime under this Act" shall be punished.

This is the purpose of punishing only a new member or a person who jointly joined a crime organization.

On the other hand, Article 4(2) of the same Act provides the purport of punishing a person who was punished as an act under paragraph (1) or becomes unable to be punished due to the absence of the statute of limitations, for the purpose of suppressing the power of a group, or for maintaining and maintaining the existence of an organization or group.

Therefore, a defendant who has already been punished pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the same Act can be punished pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the same Act and can not be punished pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the same Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below.

In full view of the circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court recognized that the Defendant officially held the title “sken” at the funeral hall at the latest from September 201 to September 201.