All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant A (as to the thief crime of larceny No. 1523 of the height of 2017), Defendant A (as to the thief crime of larceny), was found guilty on the ground that Defendant A, on the floor, set up the salt plle, about to bring the front string of the string, and did not bring the salt plle to the intent to steal the salt plle, but the lower court convicted the Defendant.

(2) As to the crime of interference with Defendant E (A) 2017 order 877 order, Defendant E was only referring to Defendant C’s assault on several occasions on the day of the instant case, and the lower court convicted Defendant E of the crime of interference with the business of the victim, although there was no interference with the victim’s leisure operation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

(B) As to the crime of destruction No. 931 of the Highest 2017, Defendant E would cause sexual harassment to the victim.

Even though it is not a damage to the property owned by the victim because it is between removal and removal after the victim's permission, the court below convicted the victim by mistake.

B. The lower court’s respective sentence (Defendant A: imprisonment of one year and eight months, confiscation, Defendant C’s imprisonment of one year and one year, and Defendant E’s imprisonment of ten months) against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim T, from the first investigation agency to the court of the lower court, was in a laundry room, and Defendant A testified in detail and details of the process and contents of the witnessed by the Defendant A to keep the salt laund on the second floor laund, and the statement is consistent with the statement in light of the empirical rule, and the explanation of the situation is reasonable in light of the empirical rule, and there is no reason to post it on the salt laver, if Defendant A attempted to steals, it can be sufficiently recognized so that the crime of larceny of Defendant A can be committed. Therefore, this part of the Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.