The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and C shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is unfair because the punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A and C (two years and six months of imprisonment for each of the defendant A and C) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B Fact-misunderstanding Defendant B did not commit an offense identical to that stated in the instant facts charged in collaboration with Defendant A and C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The victims of misunderstanding legal principles have entrusted money and valuables to secure their payment of the drinking value. Therefore, there was no intention to acquire illegal money and valuables from Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The above punishment of the court below, which the court below decided against the defendants, is too unhued and unfair.

Defendant

B 1) In light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct deliberation adopted by the Criminal Procedure Act in Korea, the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of the witness at the first instance court of the relevant legal doctrine, the first instance court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine was clearly erroneous in the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness at the first instance court in light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court.

Unless there are extenuating circumstances to see that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial, or in full view of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of the appellate trial, the appellate court is a witness of the first instance trial.