A. Defendant A 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (abrogating injury) (1) Defendant A did not have the victim AK enter his house, and did not know that the victim was the victim.

② Defendant A only took part in the commission of robbery B’s robbery because the victim consumeds money with gambling and did not repay the money to the victim.

In addition, it is difficult to see that there was an intentional injury to Defendant A, or the victim's injury was caused by Defendant A's assault.

③ In order to confirm whether the victim owns money, Defendant A merely saw the victim’s 7 le-phone mobile phone phone phone (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”) owned by the victim and did not intend to obtain illegal gains on the said mobile phone.

④ Since Defendant A’s assaulted the victim, the act of assaulting the victim took place in the instant mobile phone from the victim, there is no relation between Defendant A’s assault and the delivery of the victim’s mobile phone.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B ( Imprisonment of three years and six months) is too unreasonable.

C. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant E (for each of the crimes listed in the holding, 6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of imprisonment, etc. for the remaining crimes) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to whether Defendant A had the victim enter the victim’s house or had the victim known in advance, i.e., the victim introduced Defendant A and B from middle school-friendly DG upon introduction of Defendant A and B on August 19, 2017.