The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant's complaint of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, Articles 157 and 153 of the Criminal Act examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, if the person who committed an offense without the accusation under Article 156 of the same Act makes a confession or acceptance of a punishment before the judgment or disciplinary action on the reported case becomes final and conclusive, the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted, and therefore, the confession prior to the final and conclusive judgment shall be stipulated as the grounds for the necessary mitigation or exemption. Since there is no legal restriction as to the procedure of confession as above, there is no limitation as to the procedure of confession in the court dealing with the reported case, and it is a confession that the report was superior to the truth before the person withdraws as a witness at the court dealing with the reported case, as well as that of the defendant or suspect in the appellate case, and is also included in the concept of the above confession.

Furthermore, even if the defendant, as long as he/she has been so led to the confession, the application of the above provision does not obstruct the application of the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Do1639, Nov. 27, 1973; 2002Do46, Aug. 23, 2002; 2003Do3133, Oct. 14, 2004). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant was found to have led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case at an investigative agency without prosecution under the circumstance that each of the cases against D, F, I, and J was not prosecuted, and the fact that the defendant was led to the confession of each of the crimes of this case at an investigative agency without prosecution.