Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the fact that the defendant gets back the victim B (hereinafter referred to as "B") and was killed is sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of misconception of facts by the defendant.

At the lower court, C (the attempted victim is also the victim of murder; hereinafter referred to as “C”) residing in the same lodging room as the Defendant’s workplace fees, made a statement to the effect that “A victim B was knife by asking the victim B whether the Defendant sent his handphone to the victim B at the restaurant.” The Defendant entered the restaurant with a knife and knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

(No. 59-60 of the trial record) Also, H and G residing in the same accommodation as Defendant’s work bonus stated to the same effect in the court of original instance.

(Public Trial Records 71-72, 84 pages) G further, “A victim B, who was frightened by the Defendant, was frightened.”

The lower level was not a lushel, but a lower level.

Doz. Doz.

c) was the same as the embarrasses that were about to kill.

In this situation, it was difficult to do so for the first time.

“The testimony of these witnesses was made (Evidence No. 252 pages). The testimony of these witnesses is generally consistent, contradictory, and consistent with each other, and their credibility is very high. On the contrary, the Defendant was released from the prosecution by “C to knife the Defendant with a knife, and knife B.

After having made a statement to "C", "C intends to write the defendant with a knife.