A. Defendant A asserted that it is not a connection, such as living together with Defendant B, as stated in the facts charged, but this cannot be deemed to have influenced the conclusion of the judgment due to misunderstanding of facts, and such determination is not made.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 200 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B does not seem to have clearly withdrawn the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and thus, it shall be determined by deeming this as the grounds for appeal.

1) misunderstanding of facts by Defendant B was committed by Defendant A’s intimidation. 2) An unreasonable sentencing sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (a prison term of eight months, a suspended sentence of two years, and a community service period of one hundred and twenty hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the record of the instant assertion of mistake of facts in light of the following: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A had committed an act of violence which could not resist against Defendant B, or a intimidation which would not have any way to defend against the life or body of his or her relatives; and (b) Defendant B had made a statement by A prior to the original trial by asserting that Defendant B had made a statement by intimidation A; and (c) the aforementioned assertion of mistake of facts was commenced without a statement of change in circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant B was exempted from A’s intimidation, etc., even if the record of the instant case was examined, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B participated in the instant crime by either an act of violence which could not resist the resistance of Defendant A, or a threat which would not

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion to the effect that Defendant B’s act forced to commit the instant crime is subject to the responsibility pursuant to Article 12 of the Criminal Act is groundless.

B. The Defendants expressed their attitude to make a judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing, which led to the fact that they led to confession and reflect on the instant crime.