All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the second preliminary charge against the victim’s death, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

In addition, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as the grounds of appeal along with unfair sentencing, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the second trial date of the

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts regarding confinement cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment is unreasonable

2. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that there was no proof of the crime as to the charge of murder, which is the primary charge for the death of the victim, and the injury resulting from the first preliminary charge, among the revised charges of this case

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the record, the above determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules