A. As to the part of the charge of robbery against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, the relationship and predictability between the Defendant’s act and the victim’s death cannot be acknowledged.

Therefore, although the court below found the defendant guilty on this part, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charge of robbery, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had already asserted as identical to this part of the allegation at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances

In light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is reasonable and acceptable in light of the following legal principles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do243, Sept. 9, 1986; 89Do556, Oct. 13, 1989; 200Do5188, Dec. 22, 2000; 2007Do2245, Jun. 14, 2007).

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

1) The Defendant: (a) followed the victim’s residence; (b) obstructed the victim’s suffering in the vicinity of the entrance; (c) prevented the victim from standing around the entrance; (d) knee and knee each part of his arms; (c) prevented the victim from suffering a kneeing the part of the part of the victim; (d) prevented the victim from suffering a knee with the part of the other knee who strongly resisted the victim; and (e) prevented the victim from suffering a knee for about 10 minutes; and (e) led the victim from leaving the part of the resistance to the part of the kne.

2) thereafter.