Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(A) Although there was no intention to kill the victim E, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though there was no intention to kill the victim E.

(B) In fact, the Defendant appeared to not return KRW 10,00,000 which was paid by the victim C for the purchase of cosmetics due to freight disputes, and caused the victim E to be the counter party to the Defendant, and caused the victim E to feel a sense due to his death, etc., and caused the victim E to feel a sense of confidence, such as leading the Defendant to his own house to prevent the victim E from receiving the victim’s instructions, and leading the victim E from finding him. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by recognizing the motive for the instant crime by simply recognizing the motive of the instant crime as business complaints and drinking bullying, etc.

(C) Although the Defendant did not intend to kill the victims in a planned manner since he committed the instant crime in a contingent manner, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misconception of facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing the instant crime as planned.

(2) Although the Defendant voluntarily surrenders to the police immediately after the instant crime, the lower court did not recognize it and thereby did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) Although the Defendant was in a state of mental disability due to the detention at the time of the instant crime, it was erroneous in the lower court’s misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to reduce the punishment.

B) The judgment of the court below on the imposition of an unreasonable sentencing.