The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed in entirety.

Defendant

D. In 8 months of imprisonment, Defendant A, F, and E.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 4, 2017, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant F, the Defendant did not withdraw funds and did not actually withdraw or remit funds.

Nevertheless, the lower court, upon receiving the direction from K, withdrawn and remitted the amount of damage caused by springing under the direction of K.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Undue sentencing (the Defendants) of each sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of short-term, ten months of short-term, and one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal against Defendant A and F, it is apparent that the judgment of the court below, Defendant A and F, each of the BF birth and BG life, was less than 19 years old at the time of the judgment of the court below, but the above Defendants were not juveniles more than 19 years old at the time of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the judgment of the court below that sentenced the above Defendants to a non-scheduled sentence pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act against the above Defendants pursuant to Article 60(1) of the Juvenile Act was no longer maintained.

However, there are such reasons for ex officio reversal.

Even if Defendant F’s assertion of mistake about the lower judgment is still subject to the lower court’s determination, it will be examined together with the following.

B. We examine the judgment on the Defendant F’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., at the time of investigation by the investigative agency, K had annoyedly released the F, and withdrawn the F once more than once, because it did not believe that the F had to withdraw.

“The place was stated to the effect that “the person, who was a uniform, memorys” (Evidence Nos. 3, 772-778 of the evidence record), and ② Defendant also stated to the effect that the place was a uniform (Evidence No. 778 of the evidence record).