All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (Defendant B1) 1 of the misapprehension of the legal principle was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability at the time of each of the instant crimes, but the lower court did not recognize it. (2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on the Defendant B (the first crime in the original judgment: imprisonment of one year and three months, and the third crime in the original judgment: imprisonment of two months) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C’s punishment (the first crime of the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 3 months, and the second crime of the original judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months) declared by the lower court against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 3, 2019, according to the record, Defendant B’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle, even though it is recognized that Defendant B received the diagnosis and treatment of “comprehiveness disorder” from the AH mental health doctor around May 3, 2019, in light of the background, means and methods of each of the crimes in this case, Defendant B’s behavior before and after the crime in this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that Defendant B did not have any state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the crimes in this case. Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. Therefore, Defendant B’s assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle on the allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit. Defendant B’s confession and reflects all of the crimes in this case; Defendant B made an agreement with the victim E in the instant joint confinement and joint conflict at the trial; this case’s crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

However, the crime of joint confinement and joint attack of this case was committed by inducing a minor to drink with the victim, and subsequently, by taking advantage of it about 11 hours, confinement, intimidation, and assaulting the victim and taking property over, thereby constituting the crime in light of the circumstances, contents, planning, etc. of the crime.