(2) The Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants asserted a mistake of facts as well as the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and withdrawn the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts on the first day of the trial; (b) the Defendants made a true statement after the Defendants’ second day; (c) Defendant A was subject to criminal punishment; (d) Defendant A was the injured victim; and (e) Defendant B was serving in a company with the representatives of D; and (e) Defendant B was serving in a post-school relationship with the ship of the same region; and (c) Defendant A was also serving in a company with the representatives of D; and (d) Defendant A was also serving in a post-school relationship with the ship of the same offense; and (e) there are some circumstances to take account of

However, considering that Defendant B’s act of committing the instant crime was committed by Defendant B, who was a criminal offender in accordance with Defendant A’s teachery and made a false statement, thereby allowing the criminal to escape through the criminal investigation agency, the crime was mixed with the investigation of the offender and obstructed the action of the criminal justice, and the liability for the crime was not easy. Defendant A was punished once for the same kind of crime, and other unfavorable circumstances, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the instant crime, means and method of the instant crime, and other various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as the following circumstances, it cannot be determined that the lower court’s punishment is unreasonable because it is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.