Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the defendant among the judgment of the court below 2016 order 1467, 2016 order 4428 and the judgment of the court below of second instance.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, with prison labor for a crime of 2144, the second half of 2016, the second half of 2016, the second half of 2016, with prison labor for a crime of 1 year and two years, Defendant C: imprisonment with labor for three years and six months, and Defendant BD: the second half of 2016, the second half of 2016, the second half of 809, the second half of 2017, the second half of 2017, the second half of 2017, the second half of 2017, the second half of 2017, the second half of 207, the second half of 2016, the second half of 2016, the second half of 2019, the second half of 30, the second half of 2016, the second half of 2019, the second half of 16, the second half of 36.

2. Determination

A. Before determining ex officio (Defendant A) the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below and the pleadings were combined in the trial of the court below. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A and the crimes in the judgment of the court of second instance in the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, among the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced separate punishment for each of the above crimes, the part of the defendant against Defendant A in the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained further in this respect.

B. Determination as to the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing (as to the part 2016 order 2144 of the first instance judgment in the case of Defendant A), it is recognized that the Defendants led to the confession of all the crimes and divided their mistakes, and the victims DD and W wanted their preferences.

However, in light of the form, method, and frequency of each of the crimes of this case, the responsibility for such crimes is very important; Defendant A has been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, etc.; Defendant C has been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, etc.; Defendant C has been punished several times due to the same crime; Defendant BD has the same kind of crime.