The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

One knife (No. 2), one knife, which has been confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s imprisonment (20 years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) found the Defendant guilty of facts as false from the time of kidnapping the Victim F. When withdrawing cash at a cash withdrawal time with the victim’s credit card, etc., the Defendant arrested the victim with a conclusive intention to kill the victim from the beginning, and then murdered the victim after saving the victim, by using the victim’s Kakao Stockholm message to the effect that “the victim’s Kakao Stockholm messages return to the previous body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body body name

(2) if not, and

Even if at least the face of the victim is reduced and the face and chest of the victim are saved in a non-discriminatory manner, there was dolusence in murder from the time when the victim's face and chest were saved.

Although the judgment of the court below which judged that the defendant has no intention to commit murder and did not regard the defendant as robbery, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below.

(2) The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unjustifiable and unjust.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.

(1) The lower court determined that the Defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of robbery because it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant intended to kill the victim with respect to the robbery in which the indictment was instituted, but could not be held responsible for the crime of robbery, and that the Defendant could be held responsible for the crime of robbery, and applied the Defendant to the crime of robbery without the prosecutor’s amendment process.

However, there is no proof of the crime of robbery which was instituted.