All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the part of innocence against the defendant) denied all the facts charged at the investigative agency and recognized the remainder of the facts charged at the court of the original instance. The defendant B denied the facts charged which was recognized at the time of the second investigation by the police and the prosecutor's first investigation by the prosecutor's meeting of the defendant A, but denied all the facts charged at the time of the second investigation by the prosecutor's meeting of the defendant A, but again recognized the facts charged at the court of the original instance. In light of the circumstances leading up to the reversal of the statement, etc., the confession statement by the defendant B should be deemed to have high credibility. However, the court below rejected the credibility of the statement just because the defendant B made a little confusion about the date and time of the crime by testimony at the court of the original instance. Thus, the

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and six months, suspension of execution of three years, additional collection of 4.9 million won, probation, community service order 120 hours, Defendant B: imprisonment of one year and six months, and additional collection of 7.6 million won) is too uneasable and unfair.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below judged that there was a statement by Defendant B as direct evidence of the facts charged in this part in the written judgment, and it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the statement due to the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged without a reasonable doubt. In line with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts or violating the rules of evidence