All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the punishment of Defendant B (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below to the defendant is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C In light of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts (related to the crime of neglect of duty)’s position and degree of participation at the instant entertainment shop, the Defendant had a legal or contractual duty to protect the victim.

Although the establishment of aiding and abetting cannot be seen, it is difficult to hold a joint principal offender liable for the crime, and it was difficult to anticipate that the victim would die due to acute alcohol addiction at the time. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the above charges of death by abandonment among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Defendant

A Fact misunderstanding or legal doctrine misunderstanding the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

Since the defendant was aware of only, at the time, did not have the intent to abandon the victim, and it was difficult to expect that the victim would die due to acute alcohol addiction, so the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's liability for the crime of de facto abandonment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles (defendant A) accepted the Defendant's proposal and directly participated in the commission of the crime committed against the victim. Thus, although the Defendant could fully recognize the common principal of the crime committed against the victim, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.