[Defendant A] Of the guilty portion and the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, each of the Defendant’s conviction portion and the acquittal portion, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts in relation to the crime of murder is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant A guilty of the charge of murder, even though the Defendant A was not guilty of the crime of murder by opening a lid which allowed the victim to drink tax exemption on his own to commit suicide, and intentionally opened a lid lid for the purpose of committing suicide, which was killed due to the flusium addiction, or (2) he was dead due to the flusium flusium due to the flusium flusium in the process of smoking in the state of drinking water in order to commit suicide; and (3) the Defendant A was guilty of the crime of murder even though he did not murder by opening a lid with the victim a lid which allowed it to be addicted to the annual gas by causing it to be addicted to the annual gas.

B) Defendant A submitted a written claim for insurance money to obtain a refund upon cancellation or the victim’s death, and did not intend to obtain the insurance money, but the part of Defendant A is omitted from the name of the insurance company below the victim Samsung Bio-stock Co., Ltd... In addition, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the charges of attempted insurance fraud for Hyundai Marine and Fire Insurance (Free Dividend Fire Insurance). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (20 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts submitted a written claim for insurance money to receive the cancellation refund, but the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of attempted insurance fraud for the victim Hyundai Marine and Fire Insurance (Undividendt Lease Insurance) was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. 2) The sentence imposed by the court of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) Defendant B and C’s murder is exempted on the Internet.