1. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, proved that the facts charged that Defendant D participated in the joint principal offender in the crime of Category C with the recognition of at least dolusent negligence, and sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for deliberation.

On the ground that it is difficult to see this part of the facts charged, the first instance judgment which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges was maintained.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding willful negligence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

B. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the facts charged, which rejected Defendant D’s application for changes in indictment.

subsection (b) of this section.

(c)

The prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the court below as to Defendant D, but did not state the grounds of appeal as to the remainder of the judgment.

2. As to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal

A. The lower court found Defendant D guilty of the murder of the Victim K on the ground that Defendant D conspired with C and conspired with C to murder the victim’s intent to jointly kills the victim K, on the following grounds: (a) acknowledged that Defendant D was aware of, or predicted, the possibility of murdering the victim’s knife and shared the essential part of the elements for the crime of murder with the mutual understanding that the principal part of the crime of murder is shared; and (b) Defendant D continued to play a key role with C in the process of committing the entire crime; and (c) Defendant D continued to perform a key part of the crime of murder.

relevant legal principles and evidence.