A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant B) did not refer to the method of kidnapping to D with the intention of actually gathering robbery, but only requested money by considering D as refer to the plan of kidnapping due to a storm. Thus, there was no purpose of kidnapping.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months and Defendant B: 10 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant B’s assertion in the same manner as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected Defendant’s assertion in the “judgment on Defendant and Defense Counsel’s argument”.

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of directness on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records and pleadings in this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.