1. The part of the lower judgment against Defendant A and D (excluding the part of the compensation order) shall be reversed, respectively.

2. Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C did not have been involved in the crime committed on November 28, 2018.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

On the other hand, the punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant C (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E is only the fact that Defendant E had a vehicle with the knowledge that he committed a crime, and thus, Defendant E’s liability should be limited to the aiding and abetting offender, not the joint principal offender.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the co-principal against Defendant E is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

On the other hand, the punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant E (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the above Defendants A, B, and D (five years of imprisonment for the Defendants A, three years and six months of imprisonment for the Defendants B, and two years of imprisonment for the Defendants D) is too unreasonable.

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant E is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant C and his defense counsel asserted the same content as the grounds for appeal in the original instance.

The lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion on the ground that “Defendant C may be recognized as a fact of participation in the crime committed on November 28, 2018,” based on the detailed circumstances stated in “2. Defendant C” in the 13th judgment of the lower court.

Defendant

In light of the records of the instant case, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the statement of each court in C, the interrogation protocol of Defendant B by prosecution, etc., is sufficiently recognized that Defendant C participated in the crime on November 28, 2018.

Therefore, the above 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 as stated in the grounds of appeal.

Accordingly, Defendant C’s objection.