The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of three years, Defendant B, C, D, and E shall be sentenced to two years and six months, and Defendant F.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and D1) misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the facts did not encourage the commission of robbery or special robbery, and did not share the commission (the lower court determined that Defendant A, who was convicted of robbery or special robbery, committed a joint attack or joint injury, and that Defendant D, who was convicted of the crime of robbery, should be recognized only for the crime of robbery and joint injury, and the crime of joint injury should be recognized). The lower court convicted the Defendant D of all the charges of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (for Defendant A: four years of imprisonment, and Defendant D’s imprisonment: three years and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B and C1’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the part concerning robbery), and that at the time of robbery on February 9, 2016, the victimized person was injured by the assault of the Defendants at the time of committing robbery.

there is no evidence to determine the person, and even if there is an assault by the Defendants, the victim was injured by the assault.

Even if the injured party’s wife did not interfere with daily life and did not require any special treatment for recovery, so it does not constitute injury as referred to in the robbery crime (the legitimacy of this part of the assertion is also affected by the remaining Defendants’ criminal liability in the relationship of joint crimes with the above Defendants, and the remaining Defendants are also judged ex officio below). 2) The sentence that the court below sentenced unfair sentencing (Defendant B: 3 years of imprisonment and 3 years of imprisonment and 3 years and 7 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

E1) Legal principles were erroneous in the facts charged in the instant case, which led to the misunderstanding of legal principles that the act of joint confinement was a means for robbery. Therefore, even though one of the two crimes is in a concurrent relationship among several crimes, the lower court’s judgment is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The decision was determined.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes.