Of the part against Defendant A of the lower judgment, the crime sight table 1 of the case No. 2018 Godan83 (Separation) as indicated in the lower judgment is one of the crimes committed against Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court against Defendant A, B, and B [the imprisonment of two months with prison labor for each of the crimes set forth in the first sentence of the second sentence of the 2018 ancient group of crimes set forth in the judgment below, and the imprisonment of one year and four months for each of the remaining crimes set forth in the judgment of the lower court, the imprisonment of eight months for eight months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order of 120 hours] is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor (defendant C andL) acknowledged the credibility of the prosecutor’s statement of the defendant C and AL corresponding to each of the facts charged in the instant case, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant C and AL conspired with D, etc. as stated in the facts charged in this part, and the victims were arrested.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant C andL of each charge on the ground that there was no proof of criminal facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A. In light of the fact that the sentencing of the first instance court’s 2018 High Order 83 (Separation of the first instance court’s judgment), based on the statutory penalty, is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and the appellate court’s ex post facto nature, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in cases where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court’s opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).