All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) was expected to make a statement to the same effect as the police statement, and there was no reason to request B, B, and C to make a false testimony, and there was no reason to request B, and C to make a false testimony. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts) Relevant legal principles (A) In order to establish a principal offender, the principal offender’s teacher does not need to be the sole condition for the principal offender’s crime, and thus, insofar as the principal offender resolved to commit the crime through an act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender, it does not affect the establishment of the principal offender even if the principal principal had committed another crime due to another cause.

(2) In light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined in the first instance court, the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous, or there are exceptional cases where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is remarkably unfair considering the results of the first instance examination and the results of additional evidence examination conducted by the time of closing argument in the appellate court, the appellate court shall not reverse the first instance judgment on the ground that the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance is different from the appellate court’s judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7407, Nov. 15, 2012). Furthermore, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant is identical to the allegation of mistake in the first instance judgment, and the lower court consistent with B, C through the investigation agency to the date of closing argument in the appellate court, and consistent with D’s testimony in the first instance judgment.