The judgment below

The remainder, other than the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment.

1. The lower court dismissed the applicant’s application for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part dismissing the said application for compensation was immediately finalized.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant A: Although there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Defendant B: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of sentencing 1) Although there is no direct evidence to prove the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding of facts.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Prosecutor: The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (four years of imprisonment each) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

3. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendants asserted that the lower court would stimulate the instant crime by expectation of the absence of evidence, but the lower court rejected all the Defendants’ assertion on the grounds of the detailed circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely by comparing it with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) Meanwhile, among CCTV images taken on the day of the instant crime, Defendant B was exposed to the images taken in the Dong-gu Daejeon apartment site (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the place of the instant crime, its neighboring areas, and the taxi used as a means of escape (18.18.