The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant B (including the innocent part of the reasons) shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Regarding B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) The lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged on the part of this case by misunderstanding the fact, even though the Defendant did not have obtained the money of the victim H in collusion with his nameless persons (one name I, J, etc.).

2) The Defendant, in collusion with K, etc., did not obtain money from the victim N, and instead did not constitute a victim who belongs to C, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the following grounds: (a) Defendant B’s not guilty portion related to Defendant B’s crime was found to have been acquired by deception in collusion with A, etc.; (b) the lower court found

2) Although Defendant A’s part of acquittal on part of Defendant A’s victim H-related facts were found to have conspiredd to commit the second and fifth second crimes set forth in [Attachment 1] List 2 and 5 of the lower judgment, the lower court found Defendant A not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it

3) The lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the part of the Defendants’ non-guilty part concerning the victim N, on the ground that the Defendants conspiredd to commit the second offense in attached Table 2 to the victim N by committing the crime in attached Table 4, 7, 14, 18, and 20.

(c)

Defendants and the prosecutor argued that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor so far as it is too unfasible. The Defendants asserted that the sentence of the lower court is unfair.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. It is remarkably unfair for the appellate court to maintain the judgment as it is, due to the fact that there is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of a conviction in the appellate court’s trial process, and that the first deliberation evidence was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was contrary to logical and empirical rules.