1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A regarding Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

2...

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant D) merely attempted to mixed with the victim’s bridge, and did not intend to kill the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that there was an intentional murder on the part of the Defendant. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant D: 12 years of imprisonment, confiscation, Defendant A: 5 years of imprisonment, Defendant B, and Defendant C: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendant A, B, and C) Defendant A, B, and C were assaulted against the victim in a knife of D, and did not have any knife, even though the victim was flife and flife by having been unable to resist.

Therefore, since the above Defendants had dolusent intention of murdering against the victim, they should be deemed not merely engaged in the murdering of D, but to have engaged in the murdering of D in order to conduct the murdering by soliciting and participating in the murdering.

B) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (with respect to both the Defendants) is too uneasible and unfair.2) Although the part on the attachment order case (defendant D and A) Defendant D and A are likely to recommit the murder crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the fact that the lower court dismissed the request for attachment order.

2. Determination

A. The court below acknowledged the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by Defendant D’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and according to this, it recognized or predicted the risk of causing death to the victim due to his own act, as stated in the judgment of the court below, even though he knew or predicted the risk of causing death to the victim.