All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not anticipate that the Defendant would assault the victim as dangerous articles B, and there was no conspiracy with C, D, and J. Moreover, the Defendant did not engage in any direct action to detain the victim, and there was no intention to do so. Moreover, the Defendant’s intent to compel the victim to bring KRW 3 million to the victim was for the repayment of damage, and thus, B, C, D, and J (hereinafter “B, etc.”).

The lower court’s judgment that held that the Defendant was a co-principal relationship with B, etc. as to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Special Bodily Injury, Violence, etc. (joint confinement) and the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint intimidation) was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

C. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant C (crime No. 9 of the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for three months, and crimes No. 3, 4, and 5 of the holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (crimes Nos. 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 in the original judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and crimes Nos. 3, 4, and 5 in the holding: one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. The lower court determined on the part 1 of the violation of the Punishment of Specific Injury and Violence Act (joint confinement) and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated: (a) the Defendant requested B to the effect that B is a KM staff member; (b) the Defendant was aware that B was a member of the KM and asked B to the effect that B would be a member of the KM; and (c) the Defendant would promptly catch B a female who was born to B even after he directly observed that B was the victim by drinking in Ntel.