A All appeals against the Defendants by the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant A1 has been using violence against Defendant A since before that time, Defendant A used a stroke for the purpose of diving the victim because the victim is likely to be injured on the day of the instant crime, and Defendant A did not have any intent to kill the victim in a planned way from the strokeing the victim. In addition, the victim taken a stroke, followed by taking a stroke and stroke, and was punished by a stroke or Defendant A and the stroke. The Defendant A was the victim who brought a knife in the kitchen and knife the knife and knife the knife in the kitchen, and killed the victim by contingency. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (18 years, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence (such as 18 years of imprisonment, 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution, etc.) against the Defendants on the prosecutor (unfairly unfair) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts”) attempted to kill the victim from the time the victim melted strokes in drinking water, and that he committed planned murder after unilaterally attacking the victim in the surface of water.

1 The Defendant was aware that there was a enemy who had previously been prescribed exemption from water and did not drink exemption from water is easy to drink only once.

A stroke is exempted from water in which the effect of the surface of the water can rapidly appear, and the defendant had the victim stroke to stroke, so long as long as the victim strokes down by taking a stroke, the stroke of the victim's head was at the price of the victim's head and

The defendants are different from each other.