A. Defendant 1) In the instant case, Defendant 1 was aware of the fact and of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and there was no intention to commit murder only with the Defendant at the time of the instant case.

Even so, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of murdering.

Recognizing the instant facts charged, the lower court convicted the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable to deem the sentencing to be unfair.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The part of the defendant case

A. The lower court also argued that the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal doctrine of the Defendant was the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. Based on the results of the autopsy investigator’s investigation conducted immediately after the commission of the crime, the scene of the crime, the collection at the scene, and the Defendant’s statement in the investigation agency, etc., the lower court held that ① the Defendant was released from the victim’s head, etc. pande by strong force to the extent that the kyde kys of the kypan, and the Defendant was released from the victim’s face and head due to strong force to the extent that the kys of the kys were broken, and the victim’s face and chest were used several times as the victim was unable to defend, and the victim’s face and chest appeared to have been exposed to the death of the victim due to chest pressure at the scene, ② the head and chest, who ordinarily exercised the right to life of the victim, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to sufficiently inform the victim to know the outside of the crime, as above.