The part concerning Defendant C in the judgment of the court below and the part concerning Defendant C and U in the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below against the defendants B, C, U, and V (T-type unfair) is too unreasonable. The punishment of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable. The imprisonment of six months (the court below's judgment of 6 months), the imprisonment of six months (the court below's judgment of 1), the imprisonment of eight months (the court below's judgment of 2), the defendant U: one year (the court below's judgment of 2), six months of imprisonment and suspended execution, the community service order of 120 hours (the court below's judgment of 20 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (the part not guilty against Defendant W in the judgment of the court below) stated “the entire amount” in the “scope of appeal” in the petition of appeal. However, only the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below was stated in the statement of reasons for appeal and did not state specific reasons as to unfair sentencing.

When a prosecutor appeals to the whole judgment of the first instance that found a guilty or partially guilty, or acquitted a part of the judgment of the first instance, if the prosecutor only stated the phrase “unfair punishment” in the petition of appeal or the statement of grounds of appeal, but did not state the specific reasons, it shall not be deemed a legitimate statement in the grounds of appeal

(Supreme Court Decision 2016Do19824 Decided March 15, 2017). Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed to have submitted legitimate grounds of appeal, and thus, it is not separately determined.

In light of the fact that Defendant U and C, an accomplice, told Defendant W as “a person who causes a victim”, and Defendant W was involved in the crime even after hearing the horses, the meaning of Defendant W’s words “W”, and the criminal records of Defendant C, etc., Defendant W could have anticipated the occurrence of a crime, such as attack, etc., and Defendant W did not observe the commission of the crime of attack and confinement, and Defendant W did not follow the crime of Defendant U.S., and Defendant W did not look at the victim’s female-child group, and the victim’s female-child group did not report the crime to the police. In light of the above, Defendant W was co-cond with Defendant C, C, and V’s co-cons and co-consected by Defendant W.