The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no misconception of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant murdered the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged only with the statement of the first and second prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the Defendant, which the Defendant stated to the effect that he confession, and the remaining evidence.

However, since the statement made by the defendant at the time of the preparation of the interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office at the time of the above interrogation protocol, and it was not conducted under particularly reliable circumstances, the defendant's defense counsel is not admissible, and the defendant's defense counsel recorded a conversation between the defendant's children and the defendant's children, or recorded a record on the basis of it, in violation of Article 4 of the Protection of Communications Secrets Act, and withdrawn the above argument on the first trial date of this court.

In addition, it is difficult to view the remainder of the evidence alone that the facts charged in this case were proven without reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility of evidence or by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

1) Family relations, etc.: (a) the Defendant operated a malicious engineer who was operated by the victim after marriage with the AD student in 1974; (b) operated a private teaching institute teaching school; and (c) provided a theoretical and practical instruction for the musical instruments; and (d) around 1980, the Defendant created a so-called malicious engineer in Gwangju Metropolitan City, which had been changed from the 1980, to the Siculation.

(2) During that process, a victim shall conduct a climatic surgery in 1993 and conduct a climatic surgery in December 2002.