All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six years and for three years, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor: The Prosecutor’s 2nd sentence of the lower court (2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant B) is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant A: The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years, and the second instance court: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

B1) Since Defendant B appealed against the lower judgment of the lower court No. 2 only on the grounds of unfair sentencing, Defendant B appealed to the extent that it supplements the allegation of mistake in the facts of the first instance judgment as to the facts constituting the crime of the first instance judgment.

Defendant

B There is no fact of participation in A's criminal act.

However, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment of each court below (the first instance court: the imprisonment of three years, and the second instance court: the imprisonment of one year) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below ex officio decided to hold the defendants together with each appeal case of the court 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, even if there are the above reasons for reversal of authority, Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant B’s participation in the criminal act can be acknowledged. Thus, the above assertion by Defendant B is without merit.

1. Defendant B and A are each head of a Tong and themselves while married.