All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. On September 29, 2017, among the facts charged against Defendant C, the lower court found Defendant C not guilty and convicted the remainder of the charges. Defendant C only appealed the part of the lower judgment on the grounds of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the illegality of sentencing.

Defendant

Since the part of the judgment of the court below against C which the prosecutor did not appeal is separated and confirmed as it is, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below against

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. It is difficult to readily conclude that the statement made by Defendant C (1) by misunderstanding the legal principles that a person was absent from a mistake in an investigative agency, or that the arrest was difficult or impossible, and even if Defendant C did not have the intent to commit a crime, the judgment of the court below which convicted the person who was the victim and the offender as to the crime of avoiding the crime is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The prosecutor (as to Defendant A), the lower court’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. According to the arguments and records of the instant case’s determination of unfair sentencing regarding Defendant A, the lower court’s punishment appears to have been appropriately determined by fully considering various sentencing grounds asserted by the above Defendant and the prosecutor, and there are no special circumstances to the extent that the sentencing is changed ex post facto. Therefore, the aforementioned Defendant’s assertion and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

B. As to the Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court also determined that the Defendant’s offender and the offender constituted the crime of aiding and abetting the Defendant, and closely examined the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.