All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the victims of misunderstanding of facts guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the victims of misunderstanding of facts could not be seen as deceiving the victims, was erroneous.

B. The sentencing of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the sentencing of the defendant A: one year of imprisonment, two years of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, defendant D and K: each of the imprisonment, two months of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, six months of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, two years of the suspended sentence, and one year of the suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendants led to confession from the investigative agency to the court of first instance in all the facts charged of this case.

The defendants' confessions in the investigative agency and the court of first instance are different from the statements in the appellate court cannot be said to be doubtful. In determining the credibility of the confessions, the credibility of the confessions should be determined in consideration of whether the contents of the confessions are objectively rational, what is the motive or reason of the confessions, what is the motive or reason of the confessions, what is the circumstance leading up to the confessions, and what are not contrary or contradictory to the confessions among other evidence than the confessions.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2556 Decided April 29, 2010). B.

Examining the record, there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the Defendants’ confessions in the motive or background, and the content of the statement is not contrary to or inconsistent with the objective circumstances, which are acknowledged by other evidence, as follows.

Furthermore, since the confessions by the Defendants are sufficiently reinforced evidence, the Defendants could fully recognize that the Defendants had received property by deceiving the employees in charge of the victims as shown in the instant facts charged.

On the other hand, as alleged by the Defendants, the victims' staff.