All appeals filed against A, D, E and the Defendant B of the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant AD E’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles 1) With respect to Defendant A’s partial robbery injury, Defendant G (the age of 36, Vietnam’s nationality, hereinafter “victim”) is limited to “victim”.

) There was no assault or intimidation against Defendant A at the time of delivering KRW 600,000 in cash. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding facts, which determined that Defendant A forcibly abused KRW 600,000 in cash. 2) Defendant D did not conspired Defendant D with Co-Defendant D to capture the victim in advance.

The result of the victim's injury is due to contingent assault between B and sexual incompetient L, which could not have been predicted as defendant D.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles in finding Defendant D guilty of the facts charged.

3 Defendant E has not conspired with Co-Defendant E to commit a robbery or robbery with the victim.

Even if there was such a public contest, there was such a contest.

Even if Defendant E’s act is merely aiding and abetting Co-Defendant E to commit a crime.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which found Defendant E as a co-principal of the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing of Defendant AD E is unreasonable on the grounds that the respective sentence of each of the following table sentenced to the above Defendants is excessively unreasonable.

Imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years and 3 E for 5 years and 4 months and 4 months and 4 months and 3 months and 6 months of the sentence of the court below

C. The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts (not guilty part against Defendant B of the original judgment) stated the scope of appeal in the petition of appeal as "wholly".

However, the prosecutor stated only the misconception of facts on the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal, and only argued the mistake of facts on the grounds of appeal and unfair sentencing.