All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found Defendant B guilty on the ground that there is insufficient evidence as to the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc. by an organization, etc.) on April 2, 2009, in collusion with Defendant B, etc. on the part of Defendant B, but found Defendant B guilty on the ground that there is insufficient evidence. However, considering the conflict between Defendant B and the victim AV, the situation before and after the crime was committed, the status within Defendant B’s organization, the victim AV’s status within the organization, the fact that the victim AV was the same age as Defendant B and other violent organizations, and the characteristics of the organized crime, the court below found Defendant B guilty on the ground that it could be found guilty on the above facts charged.

B. Defendant B, C, E, F, G, and I’s common arguments (related to all facts in the judgment of the court below) are the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc. (hereinafter “Act on the Punishment of Violences”).

(2) Defendants 2, E, and I’s common assertion (as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, parts 2, 3 of the judgment) did not have any fact that they threatened the victim AW and AV with specific threat of harm.

3) 피고인 C, E, F, G의 공통된 주장(원심판결의 판시 제6사실 부분) 피고인들은 ‘줄빳다’를 치지 않았고, 설령 ‘줄빳다’ 사실이 있었다고 하더라도 개인간의 사소한 알력으로 인해 우발적으로 일어난 일이다. 4) 피고인 E, F의 공통된 주장(원심판결의 판시 제4사실 부분) 고봉산에서는 피해자 AV를 폭행하지 않았다.

5) Defendant C (as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, the 5th part of the judgment), BG, BH, BD, and BF did not encourage Defendant E to subscribe to the Japanese colonial wave. 6) Defendant E (as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, the 1st part of the judgment of the lower court was based on the facts between the AR root, but did not enter the game room.