Of the judgment of the first instance, each of the defendant's cases against defendant B and D and the second judgment shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant .

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A Part 2 of the misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below (2018 Godan332) Defendant A did not inflict injury upon the victim A on September 7, 2017 as stated in the judgment of the court below on September 7, 2017.

The part of the crime No. 4 (2018 Godan4261) of the decision of the court below (2018 Godan4261) as the defendant A did not have conspired with the defendant B, D, Co-defendant C, etc. in advance to join the victim AM, and it cannot be said that he participated in

The defendant of the fifth and sixth parts of the decision of the court below (2018 Godan430, 2018 Godan4818) stated in the decision of the court below is merely that the victim AW and BA pay the cost of equipment and use of the mobile phone, but it does not mean that the actual user of the mobile phone would pay it directly.

Article 10-A of the holding of the court below.

The part of the crime (2018 Godan6612) proposal and explanation of the opening of the cell phone to the victim CF is not the defendant but JY, and the defendant did not speak the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged in relation to the opening of the cell phone.

Article 10-b of the decision of the court below.

Part of the crime (2018 Highest 6612), the victim CH proposed and explained the opening of the cell phone is JZ, and there is no fact that the defendant directly stated in this part of the charge in relation to the opening of the cell phone.

The victim CH was opened and only one week after the defendant was detained, so it was impossible for the actual user to take any measure on the cost of equipment or the cost of use because he was unaware of the current state of delinquency in charge of the relevant mobile phone.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B (Unfairly Undue) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

D(unfair punishment) The punishment (in the first instance court: 10 months, and 10 months: 10 months) that the lower court made by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

Part 2 of the judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of facts against A (2018 Gooman332) has been legitimately adopted.