The part concerning Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years.

Defendant

A, C-.

A. As to the robbery of Defendant C (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), among the judgment below, Defendant C did not share the commission of robbery, such as that Defendant C was not in accordance with Defendant B and A, but did not share the commission of robbery, by viewing the object of the crime as physical or network.

Therefore, even if Defendant C did not functionally control the robbery of Defendant A and B, and even if the aforementioned act was affected by the robbery of Defendant A and B, it is merely an aiding and abetting. Nevertheless, the lower court functionally controlled the crime of robbery by deeming Defendant C as a net.

Based on the judgment of the court, the defendant C was guilty of robbery and there was an error of law by misunderstanding facts and by misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A (mental and physically weak) was in a state of mental and physical weakness by taking out at least 3 Maurits over a week at the time of committing the instant robbery.

(c)

The sentencing of the lower judgment (unfair sentencing) by the Defendants (an imprisonment of three years for a maximum term, two years and six months for a short term, five years for a long term, four years for a short term, and three years and six months for a defendant C) is too unreasonable.

(d)

The sentencing of the judgment of the court below by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uncomfortable.

2. Before making a judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor applied the applicable law to Defendant B at the trial of the party, “Article 337 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 and Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act,” and “Article 337 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

Therefore, the part concerning Defendant B among the judgment below is no longer maintained.

Although there are such reasons for reversal ex officio, Defendant C’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, Defendant A’s mental and physical weakness and Defendant A and C.