The judgment below

Of the above, the part on Defendant Q is reversed.

Defendant

Q shall be punished by imprisonment for one and half years.

Defendant

R. ..

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant Q and R) Defendant Q: Defendant Q was guilty of mistake in the lower court that found Defendant Q guilty on this part, on the grounds that: (a) Defendant Q did not know of the victim’s failure to bring about KRW 500,000 from the Plaintiff’s Awd vehicle container box; and (b) other accomplices did not know of the victim’s failure to bring about KRW 50,000 from the victim’s Awd vehicle container box.

2) Defendant R: Defendant R avoided the network in front of the telecom as the other co-offenders left. As such, the lower court, which recognized Defendant R as a principal offender’s liability, erred in the misapprehension of facts at the lower court that recognized Defendant R as a principal offender’s liability.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court ( Defendants Q, R’s imprisonment for a short term of two years and a short term of one year and six months and two years and six months and six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the Defendants prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal.

Defendant

Q was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below due to AY, but it was apparent that Q had reached the age of 19 and reached the age of 19. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below that sentenced Defendant Q to deny punishment for Defendant Q was no longer maintained in this respect. However, even if there was a ground for ex officio reversal, Defendant Q’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court, and the remaining Defendants’ grounds for appeal are examined below.

B. Defendant Q did not know that there was no fact that Defendant Q was the victim due to the open room, and that there was no fact that Defendant Q brought about KRW 500,000 from the contact room to the 500,000.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant Q puts and threatens the victim as if he were at the time of the camping-gu room.