Defendant

A The sentence of imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment and three years of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B. The judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant had attempted to take part in the warehouse management at the AF’s request, and did not have any intention to take part in the crime of this case.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, although the Defendant did not commit the same crime as stated in each part of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10 of the 2012 Highest 4882 case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E The sentence (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

F misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the fact that a fraud was committed by a fraud) was committed by A at the time of the instant case, and it was merely sent two tons of the charge to A within ten (10) days on the wind that A would pay the price in full. In addition, even though the fact that A was the constituent elements of a principal offender corresponding to the issuance of the former part of this case was not specified, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion

The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

J misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (2012 Highest 277) The Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, in the absence of the fact that he was in conversations with the victim at the time of the instant case.