The judgment below

All parts of the defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for life, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which led the joint Defendant B to inflict an injury on the victim S (hereinafter “victim”). However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of having committed an injury.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant merely instigated the joint Defendant C with the victim V (hereinafter “V”) and the victim only, but did not instigate the murder, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting Defendant C of the crime of homicide in preparation for murder and of aiding and abetting the victim.

(2) The sentence (a life imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C The punishment sentenced by the court below (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d)

The Prosecutor’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (defendant A and B), although Defendant A instigated Defendant B to murder the victim and V (hereinafter “victim”), the lower court determined that Defendant B, who caused the injury to Defendant B by misunderstanding of the facts, or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby aiding and abetting the joint Defendant C to murder.

(2) Improper sentencing (with respect to Defendant A and C), each of the above types of punishment, which the court below decided against Defendant A and C, is too uneasible and unfair.

2. In the lower court’s determination on Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by providing the same argument as the grounds for appeal in this part, and by providing a detailed statement on the judgment under the title “judgment on Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion.” The lower court is the same as the reasoning admitted and examined by evidence.