Of the part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B, “2016 Gohap 50” in the judgment of the Defendant case against Defendant B.

A. In light of the following: (a) Defendant A1’s intellectual impairment of violation of the rules of evidence does not guarantee procedural rights, such as the attendance of a person in a fiduciary relationship, in the process of interrogation of a suspect by the prosecution against Defendant A, which lacks significant attention compared to the general public; and (b) the fact that the examination was conducted over time; and (c) each protocol of interrogation of the suspect prepared by the prosecutor against the Defendant is not admissible as evidence because it is not unlawfully collected evidence or arbitability of the statement is not recognized; (d) the lower court used it as evidence of guilt

2) In light of the Defendant’s intellectual ability or circumstances at the time of committing the murder, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the misunderstanding of facts or murder, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the misunderstanding of facts or murder, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) Defendant A’s occupation of a child school representative does not constitute physical abuse as prescribed by the Child Uniforms Act, and the Defendant did not have any intent to abuse the victim with respect to each act indicated in this part of the facts charged, and even if it falls under the elements for the organization of the crime of child school violence, there is no illegality as a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on child abuse, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on child abuse, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

3) The sentence of sentence against Defendant A (4 years of imprisonment) of the lower court, which is unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of imprisonment with labor for not less than eight years and six months for the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to whom the attachment order was applied (hereinafter “the defendant”) is sentenced to B by the court below and the person who requested the attachment order to be attached (hereinafter “the defendant”), is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) a prosecutor;