The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of thirty years, and Defendant B of eighteen years, respectively.

A. In relation to the motive of the instant crime (Defendant A), Defendant A did not have to cause the victim to have a sexual intercourse with D in order to get the victim divorced from D and receive consolation money in a large amount, and the victim and D went back immediately to D, and the victim and D were sexual intercourse with each other. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court determined that Defendant A committed “homicide for criticism” was a crime of murder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 22 years of imprisonment with prison labor; Defendant B: 15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Improper sentencing (the part of the case of the defendant) (the judgment of the court below) is too uneasible and unfair.

2) In light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendants’ request for attachment order even if it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants would recommit murder.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the case against Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts) The type of “ordinary motive murder” in the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee established by the Supreme Court on the sentencing guidelines refers to murdering that does not belong to another type, which refers to murder due to the original relationship, and murder due to the extinguishment of home, etc., and the type of “homicide motive” refers to murdering that has special grounds for criticism in motive, and refers to murder, money, non-wheeled purpose murder, other crime, murder for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of crimes, and other similar cases.

B) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts and circumstances are recognized.

① In around 199, Defendant A her husband her husband her husband her husband her husband with the birth of the victim from around 2009, Defendant A her husband her husband her husband her husband and lived with M. who was known through the introduction of the victim.