The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

Search-and-explosive nets (Aluminium).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) did not have conspired with the Defendants A, Co-Defendant E, and Non-Party B to collect money from the victims with Defendant A, Co-Defendant E, and Non-Party F; provided, Defendant E and Defendant A only lent or drive the Lone Star Co-Defendant E and the Non-Party B’s decision in the original judgment. Thus, Defendant B’s act does not constitute a co-principal’s act, but merely aids and abets.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized Defendant B as a joint principal of the injury resulting from robbery in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment for each of the defendants) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Defendant B also asserted in the lower court as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and examined, and rejected Defendant B’s assertion on the grounds that Defendant B participated in the instant crime as a co-principal.

① From the court of the court below on September 24, 2012, Defendant A received proposals for the instant crime from Defendant B, and Defendant B knew all of the instant crimes and, in the absence of Defendant B, Defendant B did not start the instant crime. In the absence of Defendant B, Defendant B stated that Defendant B was aware of all of the instant crimes from the beginning during the third interrogation of the prosecution. ② Defendant B stated that Defendant B was aware of all of the instant crimes in the first interrogation of the prosecution.