The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A In two years of imprisonment, Defendant B shall be sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months, Defendant C, D, and E, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C’s statement on the part of the Defendants was at the scene of the crime of joint coercion by mistake of the fact that Defendant C committed a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “Punishment of Violence Act”) (hereinafter “the Punishment of Violences”), which was known to the effect that Defendant C’s statement was not reliable, and that the Defendants were forced the victims to remain there only on the condition that the victims were forced.

to record a specific statement, even if the statement was forced to be recorded

The court below found Defendant C guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the crime of joint injury was logically weak, and even if the crime of joint injury was committed at the same place as the crime of joint coercion, the crime of joint coercion was committed after the crime of joint injury, and thus, if Defendant C escaped from the scene after the crime of joint injury, the intention of joint coercion cannot be recognized.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (two years and six months of imprisonment of Defendant A, two years of imprisonment of Defendant B, Defendant C, D, and E) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts was based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, and comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (i) through (v) Defendant C may be recognized as having performed a functional control based on the joint intent by engaging in a part of the crime at the joint coercion.

The decision was determined.

① In the court of the court below, Defendant A had the victims, such as Defendant C, make a statement to the effect that the victims want to be subject to the condition, and recorded such statement.

The prosecutor stated to the effect that “I wish to remain there only from the victims,” and that I am the victim’s buckbucks due to Defendant C’s occurrence of solid defects at the time when I recorded the statement that I want to remain there.