All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment, additional collection of KRW 503,00) against Defendant B (unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

B. The defense counsel’s written opinion submitted September 15, 2017, after Defendant D’s ground of appeal was not timely filed, to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal.

1) Fact-finding (2016 high 700), the Defendant did not gather at the time and place of the instant crime.

At an investigative agency deemed the defendant at the time and place of the crime of this case.

The “Immm” researchers, including the AZ, appeared as a witness in the court of original instance and reversed their statements to their investigative agencies.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by erroneous determination that the court below rejected the legal statement of AZ, etc. and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds of the statement in the investigative agency without credibility.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on Defendant D’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (2016 Gohap 700)

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the date and time of the instant crime in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated:

The decision was determined.

1) Many of the investigators who recognized the fact that the time and place of the instant crime constituted the Defendant at the time.

was stated.

Although the defendant was in the middle of the "Imm", a number of trillion staff members found the defendant at the time and place of the crime of this case.

The above assistant was identified and the defendant was gathered by the above assistant staff.

It is difficult to view such a statement as false in that there is no motive to view it.

2) The defendant was found at the time and place of the instant crime under investigation by an investigative agency.

AY, BB, Z, AP, and V stated are present in the court of original trial as a witness, and all statements in the investigation agency are not memory.