All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts at the time of the instant case, Defendant A’s misunderstanding the fact that “the victim was frightened with the victim who was frightened with the victim.” However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that “the part of the instant crime was cut down on one occasion, so long as the part of the victim was cut off on one occasion, and the part of the victim’s blick and arms, etc. was cut up by 2 to 3 times.”

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and blade confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the Defendants (as above, Defendant A, Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for three years and two years of probation, 80 hours of probation, community service, and mos confiscation) are deemed to be too uneasy and unfair.

2. Defendant A’s part

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the video of CCTV at the scene of a crime, the Defendant: (a) took the son from the victim; and (b) laid down the part of the victim’s satisfy as follows; and (c) the satisfy was found to have the victim’s satisfy and the part of the victim’s satisfy, depending on the victim’s satisfy.

According to this, the fact-finding of the court below did not err in the fact-finding of the court below, since it is recognized that the defendant loaded the son above, and the part of the victim's s s s s s s s s s s s ss s

In addition, in full view of the fact that the length of the finger used by the Defendant is 90cm, the length of the finger is 20cm, the fact that the result of the death may occur if the neck is placed to another person, can easily be predicted by anyone, and that the Defendant severely damaged the victim’s left part part, and that two parts of the bones were cut off, etc. at the time of the instant case.