Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in entirety.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) Special robbery against S, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by a deadly weapon, etc.), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by a deadly weapon, etc.), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by a deadly weapon, etc.), and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a collective injury by a deadly weapon, etc.), and violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a) (b) (a) the Defendant did not conspired with V, BK in advance with S, and BL in a mixed manner, and C did not carry a fact or dangerous article.

(2) The Defendant did not forcibly take advantage of S’s gold bars in collaboration with V and BK.

B) Fraud with respect to DT (the first instance court 2013 high-class 408), the Defendant was granted a loan in the name of his woman to assist DT and used most of them as office rent, etc., and the Defendant was to pay a fee and used a mobile phone opening in the name of DT, but it was merely impossible for the Defendant to pay it under the circumstances of the Defendant, but there was no intention or deception against the Defendant. 2) The sentence of each lower court against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (the first instance court 6 years, 2, and 3 months, imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The first instance court’s punishment against Defendant B is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to impose a fine of KRW 500,000.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the event of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the acquittal part of the judgment of the court below in the first instance, 2013 high-scale 395 Defendant A received a copy of his identification card from E and G, the Defendant A had an intention to arbitrarily dispose of the same by opening several parts of the above identification card, unlike the promise already made to him using the above identification card, and only he had an intention to arbitrarily dispose of it by opening several parts of the same, and there was no intention to deliver the cell phone and compensation which he opened in the name of E and G. Therefore, the mobile phone opened in the name of E and G shall be deemed to have been opened beyond the scope of the entire right to make

Therefore, it is true.