The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seventeen years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of special larceny is acquitted.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows.

Although the Defendant had expressed C’s remarks that “the Defendant would die,” the Defendant did not know of and expressed his intent to help the death of a person.

On the day of the instant case, C was a person who caused breabed, thereby driving the victim's car to the place of the instant crime. The victim E gets off the Defendant's timber and gets off the vehicle on the vehicle, and did not take part in C's murder at all.

In addition, the defendant was found to have been in the play car continuously hidden, but did not participate in the abandonment of the body.

Ultimately, there is no fact that the Defendant conspiredd with C, murder or abandonment of the body, or participated in the crime.

The defendant did not steal the personal belongings of the victims of the vehicle.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (17 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on the charge of murder and abandonment of the defendant's body was also asserted in the court below to the same effect as the grounds for appeal.

The court below explained in detail the following circumstances: (a) the statement made at the prosecutor's office in C; (b) the knives used for the instant crime; and (c) the statement made by the Defendant, even if based on the statement made by the Defendant, the Defendant's act conforms to the role of the Defendant in the investigative agency; and (c) the time and method of the instant crime; and (d) the victim F and C's physical strength, etc., are deemed necessary for accomplices; and (c) the prosecutor's statement made at the prosecutor's office that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, is more reliable than