A. Regarding the abandonment of remains (Defendant A, C, D, andO) (the crime of the judgment of the court below, No. 2) 1, the bereaved family members of the case did not demand re-exploiting the remains for the purpose of preventing malodor, and there is little case in which the truth-exploiting is performed to prevent malodor, and the quantity of remains increased by re-exploiting the remains for the purpose of preventing malodor. The fact that the large quantity of remains were abandoned is contrary to common sense, and that it was against the fact that the injury of the Defendant E, who was in charge of the truth-exploiting work after his retirement, stated that there was almost little abandonment of the remains, and that it was hard to find the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act No. 2, 1, 20, 20, 30, 20, 20, 30, 20, 30, 20, 30, 20, 30, 30, 20, etc., 3)., 1.,

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3 Each of the victims BK and BL.