All appeals filed against A, B and the Prosecutor’s Defendant B and C are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the goods damaged by the Defendant claiming the misunderstanding of the facts as to the damage of property are not the goods owned by the victim F, but the CCTV among the goods indicated in the facts charged was not damaged, and the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of

2) The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (A) as to the damage of property, Defendant B (A) as to the damage of property, the materials damaged by the Defendant are not owned by the victim F, and the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the damage, even though there was no damage to the windows or glass from among the materials stated in the facts charged, is erroneous by mistake

B) As to the crime of assault, the Defendant was punished by the victim G, but the Defendant did not commit an assault against the victim, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the assault, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence against Defendant B (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) of the lower court’s unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim F, claiming misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Defendant B and C’s special larceny, stated that the Defendants were dead in support of the victim and his wife, and considering the fact that the building where the goods were kept is the victim’s ownership, it shall be deemed that the Defendants were sufficiently aware of the intent of unlawful acquisition. Therefore, the judgment below which acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) against Defendant B is too excessive.