All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was no fact that the Defendant ordered another accomplice to commit a crime, the lower court erred by misunderstanding that the Defendant served as the direction of the Defendant and thereby sentenced a more severe punishment than the other Defendants, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, Defendant B, and E) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in determining the assertion of mistake of facts: (a) Defendant A created a work room on the rooftop of his house; (b) provided accomplices with a single key to the Defendant’s house so that accomplices may easily steals the Defendant, by providing them; (c) Defendant B et al. stolen the Defendant’s accomplices, such as the alteration, maintenance, color, etc. of the Otoba; and (d) allowed accomplices to sell them again; (c) 50% of the profits from the Obaba sales; (d) Defendant A alone acquired the remainder 50% of the profits from the Obaba sales; (e) Defendant A acquired the 50% of the profits from the Obaba sales; (e) it was confirmed that Defendant E, who was liable to the Defendant; (e) Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s office, caused the accomplices to have stolen it during the suspension of execution; and (e) Defendant A did not actively instruct the accomplices to commit all of the crimes.

It is reasonable to evaluate that Defendant A plays the role of giving overall and comprehensive instructions for crimes.

Therefore, the defendant A.