A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for twenty years.

Two copies of seized insertions (No. 1) and seizures.

A. The sentence of the court below (25 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the reasoning in the original judgment), the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of murdering the victim with the intent of taking the victim’s motor vehicle by force, and found the Defendant guilty of murder only is illegal. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant: (a) around May 2006, the summary of the charge of robbery, among the facts charged in the instant case, was married with D where two parts of the victim C (the 33 years old) were dynamics; and (b) on September 2012, the Defendant was unable to prepare for the full-time rent fund, and the wife E (hereinafter “instant house”).

A) From the perspective of the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, the Defendant was living together with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, and the victim. The Defendant had frequently heard and neglected to the purport that “the head of a Si/Gun/Gu does not refuse to do so due to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu” from the victim of a Si/Gun/Gu. On January 2013, 2013, the Defendant had been urged to demand the payment of living expenses from her head of Si/Gun/Gu in a situation where the amount of income was not certain, but the Defendant had been working as a vehicle brokerage franchise after retired from a vehicle scrapping company, but was not certain. On May 2013, 2013, the Defendant had been urged to demand the payment of living expenses from her head of Si/Gun/Gu under the circumstances where the income was not certain.

13 million won was agreed to provide as security and borrow 13 million won.

On May 28, 2013, the Defendant received 6 million won from the F, first of all, and the remainder of 7 million won was to receive the instant vehicle by June 1, 2013.

However, as the delivery of the instant vehicle, which is the security, has been delayed, the obligee F is urged to perform the obligation of several times.