All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the crime of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles) In relation to the crime of injury by robbery, Defendant A merely stated that Co-Defendant B and Defendant C did not take part in taking the victim's right to care, but did not know that he did not take part in taking the victim's right to care of KRW 50 million.

B) With respect to the crime of false accusation, Defendant A did not delegate R the opening of an account under the name of T Co., Ltd., and thus, Defendant A’s accusation is not false. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (five years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of 4, 5, and 6 in the original judgment and for the crimes of 1, 2, 3, 7, and 15 in the original judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant C (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below to Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that Defendant A did not have been involved in injury by robbery, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even in cases where part of the conspiracys did not directly share and implement a crime, if it is acknowledged that Defendant A has functional control through essential contribution to the crime, rather than just conspiracys, if it is deemed that there exists functional control through substantial contribution to the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010). In this case, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, Defendant A also cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as a co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3544, Jul. 15, 2010).