All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty on the grounds that the scope of the appellate court's trial is not recognized as to the injury of robbery and robbery among the facts charged, and found the defendant guilty only of special robbery and aiding and abetting special robbery included in the above facts charged.

On the other hand, the Defendants appealed against the guilty portion, and the Prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the not guilty portion was not appealed.

Therefore, the non-guilty part of the reasons that the prosecutor did not appeal was exempted from the subject of attack and defense between the parties, so this part of the judgment of the court below is not judged again in the appellate court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant C rejected Defendant E’s proposal to commit the instant crime, and Defendant E, etc. was recruited or did not participate in the instant crime.

Therefore, Defendant C cannot be held liable for special robbery, and even if it is found guilty, it is not a common principal but a aiding and abetting crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant F1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant F merely served as a role of delivering information on crimes between P, Defendant G, and Defendant E, and did not participate in the commission of robbery or the commission of commission, and did not agree to receive distribution of criminal proceeds.

Therefore, since Defendant F did not meet the requirements of the joint principal offender for the instant special robbery, the lower judgment that recognized Defendant F as the joint principal offender was erroneous in misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court that was unfair in sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

G1) Defendant G conspired to commit the instant crime by misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.