The judgment below

No. 1-A of the Decision 2015 Gohap36.

Each part of the crimes in the judgment of the 2015Gohap48.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles under Paragraph (1) of the 2015 Gohap36 case among the facts charged in the original judgment.

A. paragraphs 2, 3, and 4:

The specific arguments are as follows. Each crime in the cases of paragraphs 5 through 9 and 2015Gohap48 (hereinafter referred to as "crimes are specified only with the case number and item number, if necessary).

2015Gohap36(1)

B. It is only limited to the case where “the victim committed a crime of death..... the victim was killed due to the crime of internal crime, which led to the death of the terminal cancer, and thus, caused the death of the victim... (b) the crime was committed.”

Although the defendant 2015 Ma36(2) puts the victim'sO, who is an employee of the "Nama treatment establishment", the defendant did not put the victim's speech and intimidation as stated in the judgment of the court below, but did not seem to have an atmosphere to put the victim's flag and did not look at the victim's knife with a knife.

2015Gohap36(3) recognizes that the Defendant would bring money in a small credit cooperative of the “NEA” on the day of the instant case.

However, the amount was not KRW 105,000, not KRW 92,000, and the owner is also the husband of the employee's office of "Nama treatment" rather than Q.

The defendant returned to the above money as evidence of illegal business, and the mobile phone was returned, and the husband of theO did not return the money again because he did not need to return it.

When bringing money, there was no intention to privately use it, and then it was obtained from the right of disposition, so it is not possible to establish larceny.

2015Gohap36(4)

A. The Defendant, who is the place of the instant case, is engaged in the religious traffic control in front of the Smomoto, and the victim again fluored on the date of the instant case, even if the victim T was able to pay several attentions prior to the instant case.