The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for seven years and for five years, respectively.

seizure.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, from B following the person who requested the attachment order to be attached, only "Defendant B" and the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order to be attached are "Defendant A".

The facts charged in this part of the judgment of the court below are as follows: (a) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (the part on the charge No. 2. A. 1) of the judgment of the court below; (b) the defendants conspired to allow the victim to drink an slicker containing the slick m, and raped the victim who lost awareness. Defendant B is limited to “slick m” unless there is a need to distinguish the slick m (hereinafter referred to

(ii)"Iropic temperature" (hereinafter referred to as "Iropic temperature") which is exempt from water containing trisopic ingredients, other than Tyropic ingredients;

(1) The Defendants 2 and 2 were guilty of having conspired with the facts charged. The Defendants 2 and 2 were sentenced to imprisonment with labor for 7 years to Defendant A and 5 years to Defendant B. The Defendants asserted that the sentence of the lower court is too unjustifiable, and that the Defendants were exempted from punishment on their own, and that Defendant B could not be aware of, or could not have anticipated, the use in the crime of rape. Accordingly, Defendant B cannot be deemed to have conspired with or participated in, the crime of rape. Despite these circumstances, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of having committed this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles. Each of the lower court’s grounds for unfair sentencing are with respect to the Defendants A and the lower court sentenced Defendant B to imprisonment with labor for 7 years, etc., and 5 years, etc., respectively. The Prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the lower court is unreasonable, and the Defendants were excessively unjustifiable. The Defendants asserted that the lower court’ assertion of mistake

The court below argued to the same effect as a substitute.

The court below may find the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated: