With respect to the preparation for murder among the facts charged in the instant case, the following circumstances acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor, i.e., the Defendant visited the D office operated by C with low blades prior to the instant crime, and there is a letter that “the Defendant would commit suicide despite death of C,” and (ii) the Defendant visited the office at the time of the instant crime, carrying with him any 11 micks, and carried with him any knicks, and visited the office at the said office with a knicks and knicks for the criminal plan, and knicks and knicks.

In addition, the defendant was also seen as having been living in the above office, and ③ the defendant was living in the above office for business purposes.

However, the Defendant recognized the possibility of death of a person existing in a building, as it recognized that the Defendant had been intending to commit a fire to a building with no relation to his duties at the time of committing the instant crime.

In full view of the fact that it is reasonable to see that the Defendant had the intention and purpose to kill C at the time of the instant crime.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged.

The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty as to the preparation of murder among the facts charged in the instant case after cancelling the adoption of a witness who was a witness who was requested by the prosecutor by C and H, and closing the pleadings.

The court below erred by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, as it violates the institutional purport of the citizen participatory trial and the principle of equality of arms, which is the major principle of criminal litigation law, and interferes with the prosecutor's proper exercise of prosecutor's right to maintain public prosecution.