Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B, C, D, and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A, B, C, D misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles of the judgment below 1-A.

As to the claim (defendant A, B), Defendant A, and B found a window store operated by the victim P along with the Defendant on June 2012, 2012. However, at the time, there was no fact that the Defendants prevented the Defendants from doing any act, such as taking a bath, etc. against the victim P, and that there was no act, such as spiting down spiting down, etc. on the side of the victim P, or surrounding the front customers so that customers may not have access easily.

The judgment below

Criminal facts

ARTICLE 1-2

On July 16, 2012, Defendant A, B, and B found to be in the roof blobbbial old store operated by the victim’s O along with M on July 16, 2012, and then locking the locks of the roof blobbbbbing machine with the locker, and then loading the blobbing machine into the cargo vehicle. However, it does not appear to have the locker as indicated in the facts charged.

The judgment below

Criminal facts

As to Paragraph 2 (Defendant A, C), Defendant A, and C found it at the street store operated by the victim R, along with the Defendant on June 2012, 2012, with the Defendant’s early police officers, to store a day-to-day watch and sell a day-to-day watch on both sides of the street store. However, it was not installed even in a tent as described in the facts charged.

The judgment below

Criminal facts

On September 24, 2012, Defendant D, as to Paragraph 4, did not use the victim P by her hand while “non-member D,” and did not use the victim P by her hand, and did not use the victim P’s body closely.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended sentence, one year of suspended sentence, one year of suspended sentence, one year of suspended sentence, Defendant C: imprisonment with prison labor for five months, one year of suspended sentence, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor misjudgmentsation of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle (as to the acquittal part against Defendant A and B), Defendant A and B are examined as of 2012.