The judgment below

Among them, the part against Defendant A and each conviction against Defendant C and M shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

The punishment imposed by Defendant A (ten months of imprisonment) by the lower court on the summary of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

In full view of the statements made by the public prosecutor (defendant B) and the accomplice A, D, the defendant A, C BB, service V, the victim S, and the victim AE, the lower court determined that the defendant B was innocent, even though the defendant B was involved in the crime of special injury.

Defendant

C The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D Imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant

G misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not correspond to “aggravated injury” in the crime of special injury, and they do not correspond to “aggravated injury” in the crime of special injury, as they do not have sufficient force to suppress the victims’ intentions.

The Defendant, as Defendant A and C’s creditor on December 12, 2016, referred to “R” coffee shop to the effect that Defendant A and C were able to substitute for services, and did not invite “the victim to force”, and did not act in the instant site on December 16, 2016. As such, the Defendant did not perform functional control over the instant special injury.

In addition, the defendant who participated in the crime of this case was forced to attract victims and could not anticipate the occurrence of the result of the injury, so the defendant did not have any intention to cause any special injury of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is not a co-principal of the special injury in this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment with labor for June suspension, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

M M misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Defendant issued the instant check by stating the date of issuance as January 7, 2018; (b) the date of issuance was altered on April 7, 2018; and (c) the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of violating the Illegal Check Control Act, since the payment proposal was presented on April 9, 2018 after the date of issuance was made.

The court below's decision on unfair sentencing.