All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment of 3 years and 10 months, Defendant C’s imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months, and Defendant F.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B did not have any misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and mental and physical disorder; Defendant B did not take money from the victim AM due to the same circumstance as indicated in this part of the facts charged (Defendant B does not know at all the victim AM). Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the police statement protocol against the victim, which was not “proof that it was done under a particularly reliable circumstance” as defined in the proviso of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The part of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) against the victim P in the judgment of the court below is not sufficient to take money from the victim P due to the same reasons as the stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on its grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C) The part of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) against the victim BA as indicated in the judgment of the court below is not a misunderstanding of money from the victim BA due to the same reasons as indicated in this part of the facts charged.

Defendant

B, through BB, 80,000 won was received in total from 80,000 won from the CP, the actual business owner in BD Gameland, but this is merely the fact that the court below received reimbursement on behalf of the joint Defendant D’s claims against the CP. Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

D) The part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) against the victim BE as indicated in the judgment below.