A. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to Defendant C among the special injury crimes committed on October 2, 2019), Defendant B (1) (the lower court’s judgment on October 2, 2019), Defendant B (1) did not conspired with Defendant A for the special injury crime committed on October 2, 2019 (2) but did not conspired with Defendant A, BO, Q, etc. (the lower court’s judgment on October 2, 2019) in view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to Defendant C among the special injury crimes committed on October 2, 2019), the lower court did not recognize the fact that Defendant C conspired with the rest of the Defendants, but recognized the rest of the facts charged, and found the rest of the Defendants guilty. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. A person with mental disability (defendant B) (the crime of special injury among the judgment of the court of first instance) was in a state of mental disability.

C. 1) The lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes in the case (No. 1: 2019 highest 2986) against the Defendants, among the crimes in the case (No. 5 years, each of the crimes in the case (No. 2020 highest 311, and the crimes in the case of No. 2020 highest 502, June 3, 2018, Articles 1 and 2 of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (No. 2020 highest 502), and 3 of the crimes in the judgment of the lower court, among the crimes in the case No. 3, the lower court’s imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes in the case of No. 2019 highest 506, and the crimes in the case of No. 2020 highest 566), is unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor. Defendants A and B are not the defendants of the second judgment against all of the judgment below.

No. 1. Prosecutor