Part concerning Defendant E and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

E and F shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant A, the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of Defendant B, the sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) In full view of the misunderstanding of facts (Defendant E and F), the victim K, L, and M’s statements and the results of the examination of detection of false words, etc., even though Defendant E, F recognized the facts involved in the instant crime together with Defendant A, B, D, and the joint Defendant C of the original trial, the lower court rejected the evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case and acquitted Defendant E and F. In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A, B, and D) in light of all the sentencing conditions for the sentencing of unfair sentencing (Defendant A, B, and D. 2). In so doing, the lower court’s sentence (Defendant A, B, and D’s imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, 6 months, 2 years, 2 years, probation, community service, and 200 hours) is too uneasy and

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination of the allegation of unfair sentencing against Defendant A and the prosecutor on the assertion of unfair sentencing is recognized by both the crimes in this case, and their depth is divided. The crimes in this case are concurrent crimes with the crimes in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) established on September 1, 201 and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and both of them may be mitigated or exempted from punishment in consideration of the equality in the case where the judgment is rendered simultaneously. Prior to the crimes in this case, Defendant A did not have any record of punishment before the crimes in this case, and the victims did not want the punishment of Defendant A by mutual consent with the victims.

However, the instant crime appears to have been committed by Defendant A while taking a desire to commit the instant crime against the Victim L, which appears to have been led by Defendant A, together with Defendant B, to have been involved in the instant crime, and due to the instant crime.