Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for nine years, and for eleven years, respectively.

As to the judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts, etc., the part regarding the request for attachment order among the judgment below is without benefit of appeal

Article 9(8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders is excluded from the scope of trial of this court, and thus, the scope of trial of this court is limited to the part of the accused case except for the part of the claim for attachment order among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendants divided a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles into a homicide with the victim at the time of the instant crime and murdered with the victim’s commission or consent, the Defendants should be subject to the crime of murder by commission or consent (Article 252(1) of the Criminal Act). However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the application of simple murder (Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act) to the Defendants, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of murder, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Since Defendant B committed the instant crime under the lack or weak ability to distinguish things due to the proof of alcohol content, Defendant B is not punishable, or should be mitigated from punishment.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (Defendant A: 11 years of imprisonment, Defendant B: 13 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. The Defendants’ judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is also the same as the grounds for appeal in this part.