Part concerning Defendant B, D, and E shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B In 8 months of imprisonment, Defendant D.

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts argues that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though Defendant A did not assault, interfere with, threaten, or compel the victims to commit the crime other than the crime of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.

On the other hand, Defendant A asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in its reasoning of the judgment on the “a summary of evidence” column.

Examining the judgment of the court below compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. Defendant A asserts that Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant A’s punishment (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime as set forth in Article 3-a, 4-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4, 4-7, 9 through 11 of the judgment of the court below) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

In light of the following: (a) there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because the new sentencing data has not been submitted in the first instance court; and (b) the sentence of the original court is within the scope of the sentencing discretion assigned to the original court, and it cannot be deemed that the said sentence is inappropriate because it is within the scope of the sentencing discretion assigned to the original court.

On the other hand, Defendant A asserts to the effect that since the victim AS, BC, X, or K appeared in the original trial and expressed his/her intention not to be punished by Defendant A, Defendant A should be considered as mitigation elements.

Defendant

As A denies the entire facts charged, the above victims appeared as a witness in the court of original instance and made a statement to the same effect, as stated in the judgment of the court below.