2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion is favorable to Defendant A, such as the following: (a) the determination of Defendant A’s assertion; (b) Defendant A recognized the facts charged in this case; (c) Defendant A did not have any previous conviction in excess of the same kind or fine; and (d) Defendant A agreed with the victim of the crime of anti-public conflict under Article 1-A (1) of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below; (b) Defendant A agreed with the victim of the crime of anti-public conflict under Articles 1-A (2) and (3) of the judgment of the court below; and (c) Defendant A agreed with the victim of the crime of anti-public conflict under Articles 1-B and 1-B of the judgment of the court below; (c) the degree of the act of indecent conduct in this case was significant; (d) Defendant A committed the crime of anti-public conflict under the Criminal Act, and (e) Defendant A did not have any special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the issuance of the judgment of the court below; (c) Defendant A’s punishment is not acceptable.

B. We examine the judgment as to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B recognized the facts charged of this case, and Defendant B is the business owner of “U amusement shop”, “the victim H’s friendship in fraud” as indicated in the judgment of the court below (Evidence No. 240 of the evidence record). Defendant B is the husband of the victim’s G crime of fraud as indicated in Article 2-A(1) and Article 2-2-B(b) of the judgment of the court below, and is the business owner of “V summary store” (Evidence No. 139 of the evidence record). However, there are circumstances favorable to Defendant B, on the other hand, there are several occasions, such as the fact that Defendant B agreed to both with Defendant B, on the part of the husband of the victim’s G crime of fraud as stated in the judgment of the court below.