Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant

X, Defendant Y, .

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) that the court below rendered against the Defendants is inappropriate as it is too unreasonable that each type of punishment (the imprisonment of one year and ten months; the imprisonment of one year and ten months; the imprisonment of one year and four months; the imprisonment of two years and six months; the imprisonment of one year and six months; the confiscation of one year and six months; the imprisonment of one year and six months; the imprisonment of one year and six months; the imprisonment of one year and two years; the imprisonment of two years and two months; the defendant P: the imprisonment of one year and one year and two months; the imprisonment of one year and two months; the imprisonment of two years; the short term of one year and six months; the defendant AB; the imprisonment of one year and one year and six months; and the short term of one year and six months) of the imprisonment of one year and six.

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, this paper examines ex officio the reasons for appeal.

Article 369 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) as “special damage” and “violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)” in the law applied as “special injury”, and “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” in the law applied as “Article 369 (1) of the Criminal Act”, and “Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act” in the “Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act against the Defendants during the first instance trial.” However, it is evident that the court below’s amendment of the Act to the Bill of Amendment to the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act constitutes “a juvenile under Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Juvenile Act.”

In addition, the first instance court decided to consolidate each appeal case of the judgment of the court below against Defendant O and P, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below against Defendant O and P are concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and a single sentence should be sentenced in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

The conclusion is.