The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.

The Akhovas Day, seized.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the case of the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant")

(A) misunderstanding of facts (a) Although there is a fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim C, there is no fact that the victim saws, and there is no fact that the victim saw.

(2) The Defendant did not hold excessive excess for the purpose of killing the victim C while carrying in his car and carrying in it in his car, but did not find it in order to confirm whether the said victim was frighted, or the said victim was locked at the accommodation, and did not prepare murder.

(3) The Defendant listened to the sound from the victim G at the gathering place, and only inflicted an injury on the victim as well as did not have any intent to kill the victim G.

B) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one hundred years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair.2) The prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair.

B. In light of the part of the case for which the attachment order was requested (the person for whom the attachment order was requested) and the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case by contingency, it is unreasonable to issue an attachment order to an electronic tracking device since the defendant does not pose

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant was found to be a E resting place at around 17:30 on March 18, 2013, which is the victim C’s work place located in Nam-si, Namwon-si, and the Defendant was shaking the victim’s head debt with his hand, and the Defendant was shaking the victim’s head debt with his hand and walked twice on the part of the victim’s hand, and walked the victim’s bridge up to twice.

This part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. On March 24, 2013, the lower court determined that the Defendant C around 20:00.