Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendants violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.).

1. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication;

A. The first instance court convicted Defendant B of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), and sentenced Defendant B of the suspension of execution three years in June and three years in one year and six months in one year and six months in one case in one case in relation to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). The first instance court convicted Defendant B of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), and sentenced Defendant Z to the suspension of execution three years in one year and three years in six months in six months, and sentenced to the suspension of execution of three years in one year and six months in six months in one case. The court convicted Defendant Z of all the charges on habitual larceny.

Accordingly, Defendant B appealed each of the remaining points on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts about the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury).

The appellate court prior to the completion of the Luxembourg, determined that the appeal against the defendant B’s grounds for appeal and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) by the defendant Z is groundless, all of the appeals are dismissed. The appellate court accepted the appeal against the habitual larceny of the defendant Z, and reversed the part of the judgment of the first instance as to the habitual larceny of the defendant Z among the judgment of the first instance, and sentenced the defendant Z to two years and six months and the confiscation of the defendant Z.

Accordingly, Defendant B filed an appeal against the entire appellate judgment prior to remand on the grounds of misunderstanding of the facts as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and misunderstanding of the legal principles, etc., and Defendant B’s judgment against the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) during the appellate judgment prior to remand is erroneous and erroneous.