A. As to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant A's attempted criminal escape and the defendant B's criminal escape, in light of the fact that the defendant B received monetary benefits from the defendant A, and the defendant B promised to be punished on behalf of the defendant where the game site of this case is controlled, and the investigation agency made active statements as to the operation process of the game site of this case and the process of purchasing the game machine, etc. by asserting that the defendant B's act was the actual owner of the game of this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant B's act was difficult or impossible to detect or arrest the criminal by causing an error to the investigation agency, but the court below acquitted the defendant as to this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A: imprisonment for eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, confiscation, Defendant B’s imprisonment for six months, the suspension of execution of one year, and confiscation) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) On June 26, 2014, Defendant A’s criminal escape teacher (1) stated in the facts charged as follows: (a) on the first instance court’s office located in the F and the first floor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant made a resolution to make a statement at an investigative agency as if he was the unemployment of the game site; (b) on the following grounds: (c) Defendant A’s criminal escape teacher stated that “in the event that the game site is controlled, he/she should be the president, and he/she should be aware of the fact that he/she is the first class 10,000 won.” (d) Defendant B had a resolution to make a statement at the investigative agency as if he/she was the unemployment of the game site in question. On the other hand, Defendant B was under investigation at a slope G affiliated with the Seoul Special Metropolitan Police Agency’s living order and living order office, and was also investigated. The Defendant instigated the offender as above.