All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor C are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order and the surveillance of protection of one hundred and sixty hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty, inasmuch as there was no misunderstanding or false fact from L, such as the instant facts charged, there was an error of mistake in the fact-finding.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C1) Although there was no fact that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not interfere with W as stated in paragraph 3 of the facts constituting the crime, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, the observation of protection) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D The punishment of the lower court (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

E. The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the prosecutor (the defendant C) notified the harm and injury to L and the defendant was delivered three million won through D, there is an error of mistake in the fact-finding.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the judgment on Defendant A’s appeal, the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected it, the victim expressed his intention to not punish, and the fact that he did not have any record of punishment for the same crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of this case including the fact that the crime of this case was committed by forcing the victim to use heavy equipment of the defendant by causing the residents of the community to file a civil petition, and that the nature of the crime is not less than that of the crime, and that there is no special change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, it cannot be deemed unfair since the original judgment’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Defendant B-.