A. Inasmuch as the misapprehension of legal principles and mistake of facts (the guilty part against Defendant A among the judgment of the first instance court), the prosecutor’s name and seal and signature are omitted in the indictment served by Defendant A, the indictment is null and void because it fails to meet the requirements of Articles 254 and 57(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B) Of the case No. 2013 Highest 5406 of the first instance court’s judgment, Defendant A conspired with Defendant B in collusion with Defendant B (hereinafter “Handphone”).

With respect to the part on which he administered (Article 2, 3, 5, and 7 of the Criminal Act as indicated in the judgment of the first instance court), Defendant A and Defendant B did not participate in the administration of phiphones, since they did not participate in the administration of phiphones in the Defendant B, and in particular, in case of paragraph (7) of the criminal facts in the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant A did not conspired to administer phiphones by dilution with each of phiphones per se. (2) With respect to the case of the first instance court of 2014Ra186, the first instance court did not agree to administer me while Defendant A she was diving with Defendant A’s her mother phone and did not know of the Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor with prison labor for 20 months; and thus, Defendant A’s confession at the first instance court did not receive from Defendant A’s 10th instance judgment on her own phiphones; Defendant A’s remaining 16th instance judgment on 14th judgment on her own own.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part not guilty against Defendant A among the judgment of the first instance) 1) 1.-D. of the judgment of the first instance.

As to paragraph A, Defendant A.