1. Each part of the judgment below against Defendant A regarding the guilty part, Defendant B, C, and D shall be reversed.

Defendant .

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B, C, and D’s punishment (the Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight years; the Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for two years with prison labor for each of the crimes in the order of 2016 set forth in the lower judgment; the highest order of 2016 set forth in the lower judgment; the highest order of 945, 2016 set aside in the lower judgment; and the highest order of 1649 set forth in the lower judgment for each of the crimes appears to be erroneous.

6 years of imprisonment with prison labor, 7 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C, and 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment for Defendant D) are too unreasonable.

B. Defendant E (1) Of the lower judgment’s crime No. 2016 senior 1649 criminal facts, Defendant E did not introduce Defendant A to Defendant C, and there was no fact that Defendant A provided the following information: (a) the female string of portable keys and fin number crowdfunding, etc. to Defendant A; and (b) the method of entry into the Grandroth straw.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The public prosecutor's defendant D is also established as a special larceny, and the court below's punishment against the defendant D is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing by the above defendants A, B, and C has already been punished several times, and even if they were punished as a larceny or stolen crime, they were committed as a repeated crime, the above defendants organized the organization of the above defendants, repeated crimes using special veterinary methods and tools, victims' damage amount, and failure to recover damage. On the other hand, the above defendants are recognized and against each of their mistakes, and the sentencing conditions of this case are comprehensively taken into account the above defendants' age, sexual behavior, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the situation after the crime were committed. Considering the balance between the statutory punishment of the crime of this case and the crime of this case, the court below's sentence against the above defendants is too unreasonable. Thus, the above defendants' argument of sentencing is justified.

B. The prosecutor's defendant.