All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are witnessing the F homicide, and there was no participation in the F homicide, and there was no other special larceny except for the special larceny crime committed on February 24, 1990, and the F aided and abetted the crime of forging resident registration certificates led by the F , but there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges against the Defendant. 2) The punishment sentenced by the court of unfair sentencing (22 years and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. 1) As to murder, the lower court also asserted as otherwise alleged in this part, and the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant conspireded with F to murder the victim Y. 2) The lower court’s judgment was based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on May 7, 1990, based on the following: (a) whether the Defendant was an accomplice of the murder; and (b) whether the Defendant was the accomplice of the murder; and (c) the Defendant committed the murder against the victim Y (hereinafter “the instant murder”).

(3) At the time, the Defendant and F had been present at that scene. Accordingly, there is a possibility that the Defendant and F conspired with the Defendant and F to commit the instant murder, ② possibility that F alone committed the instant murder, and that the Defendant was able to have tried to commit the instant murder, ③ there is possibility that the Defendant alone committed the instant murder, and that F was a mere witness. In this regard, F was under criminal trial for the instant murder committed by himself (hereinafter “previous case”).

At the time of the judgment of the court of first instance, the investigative agency of the court of first instance, and the court of second instance of this case, as stated in the judgment of the court of second instance.