The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for twenty years and for ten years, respectively.

Each of the instant cases.

The judgment of the court below which did not recognize the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") as committing robbery, but did not err in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant A (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

B Fact-misunderstanding that Defendant B conspiredd with Defendant A for robbery, but there was no fact that Defendant A conspired for robbery, and Defendant A did not appear to have seen the victim’s boomed with the victim’s breath, nor had Defendant A interfered with the victim’s breath, and only was aware that the victim did not go against the victim’s breath.

Therefore, Defendant B had the intention to kill the victim, or had dolusent negligence to the extent that the victim knew that the victim was dead.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of robbery on the grounds stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

When an ex officio judgment robbery kills a person, the person shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life (the first sentence of Article 338 of the Criminal Act, robbery), and when causing death, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years (the second sentence of the same Article, and robbery). The lower court acknowledged the Defendants guilty of robbery among the facts charged in the instant case, while “the application of Acts and subordinate statutes” as to the Defendants’ murder by robbery under “Article 338 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act” as to the Defendants’ “the applicable provisions of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes” as to the commission of robbery by applying “the former two Articles 338 and 30 of the Criminal Act” as to the Defendants’ murder, thereby choosing each “the former two”, and thereby