Of the convictions and the acquittals of the lower judgment, the Defendants’ L/O shall be respectively respectively.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction only with respect to the attempted charge of Defendant A’s F (tentative name; hereinafter the same shall apply), and rendered a judgment of conviction with respect to the Defendants’ violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict; hereinafter the same shall apply) against L,O, and T (tentative name; hereinafter the same shall apply), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint coercion) against K (tentative name; hereinafter the same shall apply), Defendant A’s attempted attack against Defendant E (tentative name; hereinafter the same shall apply), and each coercion against A, AA, AE, and AI (hereinafter the same shall apply).

On the other hand, Defendant A filed an appeal against the guilty part (C) on the ground that there was a misunderstanding of the facts about the guilty part (e.g., the Prosecutor's charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "joint conflict"), except for Defendant A's attempted attack (C-1), Defendant A's charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint conflict) against L,O, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint coercion) against K, and Defendant A's charge of coercion against AA, AE, and AI (C-2), on the ground that each of the above guilty part (e.g., the defendant's charge) was erroneous.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the above (i.e., (ii) and (ii).

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The defense counsel of Defendant A by mistake of facts was added on the grounds of unfair appeal for sentencing on November 14, 2017, on the grounds of the reasons for appeal filed by the Defendant. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal since it was alleged after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, and there is no ground for reversal ex officio. Thus, the above assertion by the defense counsel is without merit.

Despite the fact that the Defendant did not intend to withdraw money from F, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the guilty of the Defendant.

(b) a prosecutor 1) submits a false fact-finding prosecutor.