Defendants not guilty

A. Defendant A misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant A 1, by driving a Lone Star Co., Ltd. under his own possession and leaving F, J, and L (hereinafter referred to as “F, etc.”) to the office of “I” office, the criminal place of the instant crime, and taking the F, etc. into account after committing the crime. However, Defendant A was only driving the instant vehicle at the request of F, who was at the time of the commission of F, and was not aware of the fact that the instant crime was committed at the above office, and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime in advance.

Nevertheless, Defendant A conspiredd to commit the instant crime;

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below that recognized the above defendant's liability for special robbery is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

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

B. Defendant B, as to Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles), had been assisted by F, etc. in preparing tools for committing the instant crime, such asless electricity necessary for the instant crime. In addition, in order to delay the attendance time of H’s president, Defendant B took part in the instant crime by promising to take part in the instant crime at one’s home in order to create a Albaba, and received part of the money and valuables acquired as a result of robbery.

B) In addition, Defendant B knew that F et al. murdered AK in the process of committing a large number of robbery in Japan prior to the instant crime, and that it was aware that at the time of the instant crime, Defendant B et al. prepared a means to commit a crime that may be used for human life

Therefore, Defendant B, along with F, has also conspiredd with murder results, or has been aware of the possibility of the occurrence of murder results.