Of them, the part on Defendant A, B, and C and the part on Defendant D are acquitted.

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mental disability was in a state of mental disability due to the mental illness at the time of the instant crime.

B. Considering the circumstances on Defendant A, B, and C’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (five years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, four years of short term, three years of short term, three years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B and C, and two years and six months of short term) is too unreasonable.

C. According to the prosecutor (1) based on the misconception of facts against Defendant B, C, and D, the above Defendants’ statements and the analysis of field CCTV against the rules of evidence, etc., the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the preliminary robbery of Defendants B, C, and D, even though they could have jointly acknowledged the existence of preliminary robbery, or against the rules of evidence.

(2) In full view of the fact-finding on Defendant D, the statement made in the investigation agency of M who alleged violation of the rules of evidence, and the testimony in the court of the court below led to the confession that M is a perjury, and the Defendant D also stated to the same purport, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or acquitted this part of the charges in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. According to the records in the scope of trial against Defendant D, Defendant D was indicted for robbery, assault, and embezzlement in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, each of the crime of fraud as of July 13, 2012 and each of the crime of fraud as of August 3, 2012, each of the crime of causing property damage, each of the crime of causing property damage, and embezzlement of stolen property. However, the lower court found Defendant D guilty against each of the crime of fraud as of July 13, 2012, each of the crime of causing property damage, each of the crime of causing property damage, each of the crime of embezzlement, each of the crime of causing property damage, and embezzlement of stolen property, each of the crime of causing robbery, each of the crime of causing robbery, and the crime of assault as of August 3, 2012, and only the prosecutor shall be acquitted.