The part of the defendant D against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years.

except that this judgment.

A. The lower court’s sentence (two years of imprisonment) against Defendant D (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to Defendant A and B), AF mentioned Defendant A and B at the place of this case under the police first-time interrogation of the suspect on the day of the instant case, and under the police second interrogation of the suspect, Defendant A and B were under the police second interrogation of the suspect.

The statement was made by Defendant A and B solely on the currency records of Defendant A and B, that Defendant A and B had not existed at the time of the instant case.

In light of the fact that it is difficult to see, the judgment of the court below that judged otherwise, even if the facts charged in this case against Defendant A and B are found guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant C, with the exception of Defendant D, A, and B) (two years of probation, surveillance of protection, observation of community service order, 120 hours in one year and seven months of imprisonment; three years of probation; surveillance of protection, community service order 120 hours in two years of imprisonment; Defendant F: imprisonment with prison labor; three years of probation; three years of protection observation; special assault; 120 hours in two years of probation; fine of two million won of probation; imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of destroying property as stated in the lower court’s judgment; imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment with prison labor for two years; imprisonment with prison labor for two years of probation; imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months; imprisonment for protection observation; and 120 hours in the community service order).

2. In light of the background and method of the instant crime, etc. to determine whether Defendant D’s unfair judgment on the instant case’s sentencing was unfair, the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation is disadvantageous to the Defendant; however, the Defendant led to the confession and reflection of the instant crime; the Defendant agreed with the victim AR, Q, AT, AP, and AS at the lower court; the Defendant agreed with the victim AF at the trial; and the victim AF at the trial court of the first instance, “the immediately preceding Defendant did not escape or incur trial expenses; and does not want the Defendant’s punishment.”