All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, for four years, for Defendant A, and for three years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentence No. 2 against Defendant B, C (unfair sentencing) and C (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and Defendant C: 1 year of suspended sentence with prison labor for three months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1) Although Defendant A lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower judgment erred by misapprehending this.

2) Each sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) In fact, Defendant A had a small-sized license that makes it impossible for Defendant A to drive a passenger vehicle. As such, Defendant A’s driving of a passenger vehicle constitutes an unlicensed driving.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2) Each sentence of the first instance court (for Defendant B: 2 years of imprisonment; for Defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment; for Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year; 2 years of suspended execution and observation of protection) against the illegal Defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination:

A. Upon ex officio determination, the court of original judgment, Nos. 1 and 2 sentenced the Defendants to each of the above original judgment after completing separate hearings, and sentenced Defendant B and C to the second original judgment. As to Defendant B and C’s judgment, Defendant A filed an appeal against the first instance judgment against the Defendants, and the first instance court against the Defendants filed an appeal against all of the first instance judgment against the Defendants, and the first instance court to each of the above two appeals cases decided to consolidate the two appeals cases.

Each crime of the first and second judgment against the Defendants in question is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this respect, the judgment of the court below in question 1 and 2 cannot be exempted from all reversal.

However, prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the above facts and defendant A's assertion of mental and physical weakness.