The judgment below

Defendant A, C, D, I, K, L, and N are reversed.

Defendant

N in the year and six months of imprisonment;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (DefendantO) Defendant’s late at the vehicle can be faced with accomplices, and thereafter, Defendant 1 also took part in the crime of special injury of this case, because it is merely a prompt escape from the scene because it is no longer necessary to take part in the crime, although Defendant 1 took part in the crime of this case.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) The sentence that the lower court sentenced the Defendants (excluding Defendant A, C, and D: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months; imprisonment for two years; imprisonment for three years; imprisonment for probation; imprisonment for two years; imprisonment for protection; imprisonment for two years; imprisonment for a community service order200 hours; Defendant E, F, G, H, J; imprisonment for one year; imprisonment for two years; imprisonment for a suspended execution; imprisonment for two years; surveillance for protection; community service order 160 hours; Defendant I, K, and L; imprisonment for one year; and Defendant N: imprisonment for two years) is deemed unreasonable.

B. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant C and D) did not participate in the special injury of the instant case in collusion.

In particular, it did not provide guidance to the situation of other victims, including victims AG.

2) The Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, had physical and mental weakness (Defendant I), who had had physical and mental disorder, etc. at the time of injury, and had weak mental and physical weakness to distinguish drinking water from drinking water or make decisions.

3) The sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendants is too unreasonable (defendant A, C, D, I, K, L, and N).

2. Determination

A. 1) Fact-finding 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Prosecutor’s assertion on the Defendant O, namely, the CCTV images of BV buildings: (a) the Defendant was placed on a vehicle at around 00:41 in video, but it appears that the Defendant did not assault the Victim AG, or did not participate in her duties; and (b) other accomplices went on the direction of the vehicle at around 00:55 in video.