Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant B and C and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence sentenced by Defendant A and B to Defendant A and B (Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and two months; Defendant B’s imprisonment of one year and a short term of one year and eight months) is deemed to be too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by Defendant C C to Defendant C (the first sentence: imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and eight months, and second sentence: imprisonment for a short term of one year and two years: imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of 1 and three months and three months for a crime of 2 crimes in the second instance judgment) that was sentenced by Defendant C to Defendant C is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (as to Defendant B and C)

A. The judgment of the court below against Defendant C following a consolidated hearing (Defendant C) was sentenced to Articles 1 and 2, and Defendant C filed an appeal against the judgment of the court of first and second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings of each of the above appeal cases. Meanwhile, the crimes of first and second in the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant C and the crimes of first and third in the judgment of second in the judgment of the court of second in the judgment of the court of first in the judgment of the court of second in the judgment of the court of first in the judgment against Defendant C are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first and second in the judgment against Defendant C cannot be exempt from all reversal.

B. Defendant B and C were born from the majority and Defendant B, Defendant C was a student of BB, and Defendant C was a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act at the time of a declaration of the first instance judgment, but each adult has reached the first instance court, and as such, Defendant B and C could no longer be maintained from the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant B and C with respect to each illegal term of punishment.

3. As to Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, Defendant A’s confessions all of the instant crimes and repents his/her mistake in depth. Defendant A paid KRW 1 million to the victim N as stated in the first instance judgment of the lower court in the crime No. 2476 case, the lower court’s judgment, and the Defendants, etc. paid KRW 200,000 to the victim N as stated in the criminal facts of the instant case No. 2476 case.