The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of 16 years, Defendant B imprisonment of 14 years, and Defendant C of 12 years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts did not have the intent to commit murder at the time, and only there was only the intent to commit an injury or assault. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (20 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants A, B, 18 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants C, 17 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants C, and 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendants D) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C was in a state of mental disability with insufficient recognition capacity.

C. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of murdering the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding the facts does not necessarily require the intention of murdering or planned murdering. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the Defendant was guilty of murder should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the circumstances leading up to the crime, motive, motive, existence of a deadly weapon prepared, type and method of attack, part and repetition of an attack, and the likelihood of causing death.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). Based on the above legal principle, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendants were able to recognize the instant case by health care unit based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court; (b) the Defendants were able to use the body of the Defendants, including the victim’s face, by forcing the victim to drink seven soldiers for about 30 hours from October 8, 2013 to October 5:00 of the same month; and (c) the Defendants were the victims’ death at the time.