A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant did not board the taxi that the victim is driving, and accordingly did not murder the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the murder charges of this case on the basis of evidence without admissibility, such as M’s statement records, written evidence of reference witness, suspect interrogation records, and written testimony by the lower court, and evidence without credibility.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the crime of robbery of this case committed by a prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is a serious crime that infringes on a dead life in order to obtain money, the defendant is a planned crime that has prepared for the commission of a crime in advance, the victim's chest part of the chest with a deadly weapon is knife at 12 times through 12 times, and there is no effort to recover the damage of the bereaved family while denying the crime due to a defense that is difficult to obtain by the defendant, and the defendant was ageless from adults at the time of committing the crime, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is unfair.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Judgment 1 on the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence : (a) part of the statement on facts that M was directly experienced in M in the police statement and suspect interrogation protocol; (b) the police officer J and K who investigated M (1) the defense counsel’s assertion (a) the case was not resolved while investigating the taxi robbery case that occurred within the jurisdiction; (c) the investigation of this case was started and conducted as a separate book; (d) the investigation of this case was not preserved; and (e) the record of documentary evidence, etc. was not preserved; and (e) the police officer did not notify the right to refuse to make statements, etc. even though M was actually urgently arrested.