All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the defendant case

A. As to the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), the lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, acknowledged that the Defendant died after being raped by the victim in light of the victim’s behaviors and the state of wound discovered from the body of the victim, and found that the victim died after being raped, and that the sperm and blood were completely mixed within a short period of time with a red color, even if the victim’s booms at the time of contact with each other, and was discovered without mixing the Defendant’s sperm and the victim’s physiological blood within the victim’s quality, so long as the Defendant was found to have been killed immediately after the victim’s sexual assault, and on the ground that the Defendant did not have reached an agreement between the victim and the victim before the date of the occurrence of the case, or that a third party, other than the Defendant, committed a crime by rape and murder the victim.

In view of the facts charged in this case, the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged was maintained as is.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the nature of the appellate deliberation, the presumption of innocence, and the rules of law on the exclusion of illegally collected evidence, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby violating the rules of evidence and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

B. Even in cases where a public prosecutor’s appeal against the defendant is pronounced with death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than ten years, a public prosecutor may not file an appeal on the grounds that the punishment is too minor in light of the interpretation of Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17829, Apr. 28, 201; 201Do177, Apr. 28, 201, etc.).