All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant A did not have conspired with the victim E with Defendant B and the camping-gu room.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months) declared by the court below to the Defendants are too unreasonable.

2. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles also asserted in the original judgment as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected Defendant A’s assertion on the grounds that “Defendant A first proposed the victim E in advance, brought the victim E in the vehicle, brought himself in the camping room in the vehicle, and subsequently, Defendant B did not restrain the victim E from taking into account the circumstances when the victim E was taken into account due to drinking, without considering the fact that Defendant B was actually at the time when the victim E’s face was taken into consideration.”

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations by the defendant A, there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant

A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable for the appellate court to respect the determination of sentencing of the first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Defendant B recognizes all of the instant crimes.