All appeals filed by A, E, F, B and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Of the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor's (1) mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged: ① Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. against Defendant C and D Victims Act (joint injury); ② Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) against Defendant D's victim'sO; ③ Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint threat) and Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint threat). ③ Violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint threat) against Defendant A, C, and D victims M and N; ④ Special injury to Defendant A's victim'sO; ⑤ Special injury to Defendant B's victim N was committed by sharing functional roles and roles with other accomplices based on relevant evidence. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles of joint principal offenders and by misapprehending the facts.

(2) The sentence of the lower court against the remaining Defendants except for Defendant D’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment; two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months; eight months of imprisonment for each of the eight months; one year of imprisonment for Defendant E and F); and one year of imprisonment for each of the six months) is deemed unfair.

B. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants A, E, F, and B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. The lower court committed a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) against Defendant C and D’s victimO, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, thereby inflicting an injury on the victim C and D in collusion with, or jointly with, E and F as stated in this part of the facts charged, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

In short, this part of the facts charged is not guilty, and this part of the prosecution is prosecuted on the ground that the defendant D explicitly expressed his intention not to punish the defendant D prior to the prosecution of this case, although it is recognized that the defendant D's head was twice the floor of the victim's head.