Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, Defendant A, E, and E among the judgment of the court below of second instance shall be reversed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant E: Defendant E did not have conspired or participated in any of the above facts charged. Defendant E did not have any misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (Nos. 23 through 10 of the crime sight table in the case No. 2017 order No. 2243 of the judgment of the court below, and No. 2 of the judgment of the court below No. 3987 of the second instance order).

In other words, there is no fact that the Defendant received the access media as stated in the above facts charged from A.

In addition, the defendant received the access media.

Even if recognized, the Defendant did not use a direct access medium, and thus, the Defendant was “leased.”

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendants: The Defendants’ punishment of each of the lower courts’ unfair sentencing (Defendant A: the first instance court (one year and two months of imprisonment), the second instance court (two months of imprisonment), the two years of imprisonment, the two years of imprisonment, the two years of imprisonment, the first instance court (one year and six months of imprisonment), the second instance court (one year and six months of imprisonment), and the second instance court (eight months of imprisonment), and the eight months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The judgment of the court below ex officio against Defendant A and E decided to jointly examine each appeal case of the judgment below against the Defendants.

Each crime of the judgment of the court below is one of the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced simultaneously in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if Defendant E’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, the following is examined.

B. On July 18, 2017, the Defendant, ex officio, was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a special injury, etc. by the Daejeon District Court, and the said judgment on December 15, 2017.