Defendant

All appeals filed by A and C and by the Prosecutor against the Defendant A, B and D are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the criminal facts No. 1-A in the original trial), Defendant H of the victim on October 20, 2010 (hereinafter “victim”).

(2) The lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendant, despite the fact that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant C1’s misunderstanding of facts (as to Article 2-1(a), (c), and (d) of the facts charged at the time of original adjudication, the Defendant did not have any time when he was the victim as described in Article 2-1(a), (c), and (d) of the facts charged at the time of original adjudication, the lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine (as to Article 2-2(b) of the facts charged at the time of original adjudication), which affected the conclusion of the judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court accepted this part of the facts charged and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A and B violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (as to the part not guilty in the judgment of the lower court), Defendant A and B (as to the part of the judgment of the lower court), Defendant A and B sold approximately 40 cm depth of 40 cm, and caused the victim to enter and leave the Gu, and assault the victim by covering the victim’s body with wooden air and soil, and there is sufficient evidence to support it.