Of the first judgment, the part against the Defendants (excluding the part of application for compensation order) and the second judgment and the second judgment.

The first instance court accepted the Defendant A’s application, the applicant for compensation, and partly accepted the application of the E, F, G, H, and J. The Defendant A filed an appeal against the first instance judgment, and is deemed to have also appealed the compensation order part pursuant to Article 33(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. by filing an appeal against the first instance judgment.

However, Defendant A and his defense counsel did not state the grounds for appeal regarding the part of the order for compensation in the petition of appeal and the statement of grounds of appeal, and even if ex officio is examined, the grounds for revoking and amending the part of the order for compensation cannot be found. Therefore, the part of

On the other hand, the applicant shall not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation order.

(Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 32(4)). The first instance court dismissed, respectively, the application for compensation filed against Defendant A for the remainder of the application for compensation filed by the E, F, G, H, and J, the application for compensation filed by Defendant B for compensation, D, E, F, G, H, H, and J, the application for compensation filed by Defendant B, and the application for compensation filed by Defendant A and B. Since the foregoing dismissed part becomes final and conclusive as it is impossible to file an objection, the dismissal order of the first instance judgment is excluded from the scope of the trial by this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A 1, 2, and 3 is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the Defendant B Nos. 1 and 2 by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B withdrawn misunderstanding of facts against the first instance judgment on the date of the first trial of this court.

C. The sentencing of the second instance court on the Defendants of the Prosecutor’s Second Instance is too uncomfortable and unfair.

3. Ex officio determination

A. The prosecutor of Amendments to Bill of Indictment changes the victim No. 2 in the annexed Table No. 5 in the annexed Table No. 2 in the judgment of the first instance court into “D”, and the victim No. 6 in the annexed Table No. 34(1) and Article 31 in the applicable provisions of law.