1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant C and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed respectively.

Defendant

C. One year of imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) In the statement of grounds of appeal on May 7, 2013, Defendant A asserted that Defendant A contests some factual relations with respect to intimidation and obstruction of business among the judgment of the first instance court.

However, Defendant A’s defense counsel stated that only the grounds for appeal are the grounds for appeal on the date of the first trial of the party trial, and in particular, during the fifth trial of the party trial, the remainder of the judgment of the first instance except the injury resulting from robbery is recognized and clearly stated, thereby withdrawing the allegation of mistake of facts

Even if Defendant A ought to be deemed to have maintained the allegation of misunderstanding of facts as to intimidation and interference with business among the judgment of the court of first instance, in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is correct.

Defendant

A, even though under the influence of alcohol, Defendant B was unable to accurately memory the situation at the time, but, when plucking, plucking, plucking and plucking up the victim I’s clothes, Defendant B was merely merely 150cc in a fluent length of 150cc (hereinafter “each item of this case”). Defendant B did not commit the robbery resulting in robbery together with Defendant B.

In addition, the clothes of I had no money at all, and the doer and Titts had been cited by Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the first instance judgment convicting of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The first instance court’s imprisonment (four years of imprisonment) declared by Defendant A on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant B did not have committed any crime of injury resulting from robbery, such as the description of this part of the facts charged.

At the time, I is a cell phone in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.