Of the judgment of the first instance, the remaining parts except the part of the first and second crimes in the judgment and the second original judgment are all held.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant A: imprisonment of 10 months with prison labor of the first judgment, imprisonment of 6 months with prison labor of the second judgment, and imprisonment of 2 months with prison labor of 10 months with prison labor of the second judgment, and imprisonment of 2-B, 3 months with prison labor of 2-B, 3-C, and 2-6 months with prison labor of 7-month, 2-C, and 6-month with prison labor of the second judgment) asserts that the defendants are too unreasonable, and the prosecutor argues that it is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants was rendered separately, and the Defendants and the Prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each appeal case. Thus, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the part concerning the first and second crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance excluding the part concerning the first and second crimes in the judgment of the Defendants, and each of the crimes in the second judgment excluding the part concerning the second and second crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act should be sentenced to a single sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding

B. Of the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant B’s judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing on the part of the crime No. 1 and No. 2 of the judgment of the first instance is against this part of the crime, and the fact that Defendant B’s judgment on the grounds of unfair sentencing is contrary to this part of the crime, as stated in the judgment of the first instance, and that equity with the case where the judgment was rendered with the final and conclusive

However, there is no circumstance to deem that Defendant B had a record of juvenile protective disposition and criminal punishment for the same crime, and that Defendant B did not reach an agreement with the victim E and H up to the trial of the case, and took other measures for the recovery of damage.