All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant (1) 1) In order to prevent the occurrence of a homicide by the victim E from misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant (1) caused the homicide to go beyond the victim. In order to dispose of the equipment loaded in the inseminator in the process, the above victim did not know that it was under the inseminator, and the victim did not do so, thereby causing the death of the victim. While at the time of the death of the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby recognizing that the Defendant was guilty of murder. (2) In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the liability for the crime of murder, despite the fact-finding or excessive defense, on the ground that the Defendant, who was seated in the narrow driver’s narrow seat of the Barara, was damaged in a size favorable to the victim, and thus, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the above excessive self-defense or causing danger to the life of the victim.

(B) As to the crime of causing property damage, the victim LA, who had been proceeding earlier, stopped on his own, and the defendant did not stop due to the so-called “stening phenomenon,” but did not stop the above vehicle by the so-called “stening phenomenon,” and did not have any intent to cause property damage, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, thereby finding the defendant liable for the crime of causing property damage.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one hundred years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneased.