The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years, for three years and for three years, for Defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A and B’s act of misunderstanding the legal principles on Defendant A and B’s act of confinement of the victim constitutes a means of robbery against the victim, and even though the crime of robbery and each special confinement committed by the Defendant A and B are in a mutually competitive relationship, the lower court, despite the fact that each of the above crimes is in a mutually competitive relationship.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles on the part of defendant A and B.

B) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A and B is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant C is too unreasonable (the attorney’s written opinion by the defense counsel submitted after the lapse of the submission period for the reasons for appeal is within the scope of supplement to the reasons for appeal specified in the written reasons for appeal, and it is not determined separately as to the defense counsel’s assertion that is not entirely indicated in the reasons for appeal). (B) The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles of Defendant A and B, in a case where the detention of Defendants A and B was merely a means to commit robbery, and even after the commission of the robbery was completed, only one act constitutes the crime of confinement and robbery. In this case, the crime of confinement and robbery are concurrent crimes as provided in Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4380, Jan. 10, 2003). In this case, the health care unit for the instant case and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. In other words, the instant facts charged are as follows: (a) the Defendants’ act of confinement is not merely a means to commit robbery; and (b) the act constitutes the crime of robbery and robbery; and (c) the crime of robbery and robbery are concurrent crimes as provided in Article 37 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4380, Jan. 10, 203).

The victim's hand, knee, knee, and snee are kneed with blue tape by inducing the victim by using cables, and the victim's snow is a deadly weapon with gale.