All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants did not have the intention of murder (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles), and that the Defendants were physically and mentally weak at the time of committing the instant crime ( mentally and physically weak), and that the lower court’s punishment (five years of imprisonment, five years of confiscation, and confiscation) is so excessive that it is unfair (unfair sentencing). 2.

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants perceived the possibility or risk of the death of the victim due to their own crime at least as possible.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendants had the intent to commit murder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002; 2010Do1514, Jan. 13, 201). This part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① After the Defendants resolved to take retaliation, the Defendants purchased a knife 10cm in knife and 20cm in total length, on the premise of a knife and a knife knife that had been disputed in sing.

(2) The Defendants discovered the victim through singing, and then continued eating the victim's head by an empty beer disease, and continued eating the victim.

During that period, Defendant B was in possession of the victim, and the victim has reached knife two times, and the knife has reached a lot of knife.

Nevertheless, the Defendants continued to drink the victim's head without consciousness.

Evidence Records 194-195 3. Emergency operations for victims

The physician in charge of X hospital was "the driver of the department in charge of flabing the upper part of the body, such as the knife knife, and flabing the upper part of the body.

A statement was made to the effect that “the life may be defrised if the impact of teared chest short food might be defrised.”

(4) The question of the police officer who asked the reasons why the knife in possession was not used, and the defendant A is the victim.