The judgment below

The part of the defendant A and B (including the part not guilty) and the part of the defendant J.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B did not know the fact that he/she had been aware of the fact that he/she habitually acquired stolen property in Defendant A and B was a stolen property. Defendant A, B did not know of the fact that he/she was a commercial miter C, which was supplied by Defendant C and E.

2) The assertion that there was no habitualness was known that Defendant A and B were stolen.

Even in light of the background, frequency, etc. of the crime, the habitual nature of the acquisition of stolen goods cannot be recognized to Defendant A and B.

B. Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B is a joint principal offender, in light of the specific contents and role of the act committed in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Defendant B is not an aiding and abetting but a joint principal offender.

2) In light of the background, frequency, etc. of the crime alleged that Defendant A and B had habitually committed the crime, Defendant A and B may be recognized as habitually committing the fraud.

(c)

Defendants asserts that the sentence of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because the Defendants were too large.

2. As to the assertion that Defendant A and B had known that they were the stolen goods of Defendant A and B, Defendant A and B argued the same purport in the original instance, and the lower court on this argument, the lower court on the assertion of Defendant A and the defense counsel

1. Whether the defendant A or B was aware of stolen goods

B. We rejected Defendant A and B’s assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances stated in the “judgment” item.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court’s determination on this part is justifiable, and there was an error of misapprehending the facts alleged by Defendant A and B in the lower judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Defendant

A and B’s assertion is rejected.

3. Determination as to the assertion that there was no habituality related to the acquisition of stolen goods by Defendant A and B

A. The relevant legal doctrine is repeated in the acquisition of habitual stolen water.