The part of the judgment of the first instance against Defendant E and F shall be reversed.

Defendant

E Imprisonment with prison labor for seven years, and Defendant F.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant K guilty of the crime of robbery is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or the misapprehension of legal principles, in spite of the absence of the purpose of the intention or robbery in the robbery preparation or the purpose of the robbery preparation, as it did not know any horses from E as to the robbery portion, and even from B, it only speaks that the male in the relation of the claim is able to talk with him as he can exercise violence.

The first instance court's punishment on Defendant K of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, two years of community service order 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

E The first instance punishment for Defendant E (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

F The first instance court's imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) against Defendant F is too unreasonable.

Defendant D, upon request from B on April 10, 2014 to April 14, 2014, Defendant D, with respect to the mistake of facts against Defendant D, committed an essential act in the crime, such as provoking a vehicle from B, and taking the vehicle from B, etc. to the place where the cash payment is made with Defendant D’s vehicle. Although it is reasonable to deem that there was a contact with B, etc. for implied joint processing intention in connection with the instant crime, there was an error of misconception of facts in the judgment of the first instance court that acquitted Defendant D of the facts charged.

Defendant

According to the prosecutor's statements, etc., as to G, each prosecutor's statement, etc. as to CCTV and mobile phone owned by other accomplices, Defendant G may be acknowledged as having been forcibly committed. Even if there was no individual intention of Defendant G on the above CCTV and mobile phone in the course of committing the crime, Defendant G had already been aware of the establishment plan of Defendant G, such as E and F, and thus it is reasonable to find Defendant G guilty of special robbery, notwithstanding the fact that it is reasonable to determine as guilty.