The judgment below

Defendant B, E, F, G, J, K, L, and M shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be in 10 months of imprisonment;

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A Nos. 145 and 146 each year of the year of the General List of Seized Articles (No. 819) of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, which was confiscated and seized in violation of A’s confiscation, shall be deemed unlawful since the lower court’s confiscation was unlawful, even though it was not related to the instant crime, as Defendant A’s street and cell phone.

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, Defendant B: one year of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; ten months of imprisonment; ten months of confiscation; ten months of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; one year of imprisonment; one year and six months in case of Defendant J; one year and six months of imprisonment; six months in case of Defendant K; six months of imprisonment; ten months of imprisonment; one year and six months in case of Defendant L; and one year of imprisonment; Defendant M) are excessively unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence on the prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing (except Defendant K and M) is too uneased and unreasonable.

Judgment

Defendant

According to the record of judgment as to the allegation of illegality of confiscation A, the above No. 145 No. 145, which was confiscated by the defendant A, is only one U.S.B, and the above No. 146, is recognized as one of the above 146, and it seems that the defendant A alleged that the above seized items were the EM North and mobile phone of the defendant A was erroneous, and the defendant A also recognized that U.S.B was provided for the crime of this case. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of law.

Defendant

A’s above assertion is without merit.

Defendant

Examining the reasoning for appeal against G, J and K ex officio, Defendant G, J, K and Prosecutor G, and the reason for appeal against J, while Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act provides that “the punishment of the principal offender shall be mitigated to less than that of the principal offender,” the lower court cannot be maintained as it did not err by omitting legal mitigation under the above provision in determining the punishment for each of the aiding and abetting against Defendant G, J and K.

Defendant

The defendants A, B, D, E, F, L, M and prosecutor's defendants, B, D, E, F, and L are inappropriate.