beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of ten years, and Defendant B of five years, respectively.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by Defendant A and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant A1”), Defendant A did not compete with Defendant B, D, robbery, or joint confinement, and the victim merely took a buck and face against Defendant A, and did not assault the victim to the extent that it could cause the death of the victim. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between Defendant A’s assault and the victim’s death and there was no foreseeable causal relation between the victim’s death and the victim’s death. Moreover, the victim cannot be deemed to have committed the act of confinement because the victim did so freely and freely, such as drinking alcohol and drinking toilets. Nevertheless, even if Defendant A committed the instant crime, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in finding guilty all of the facts charged, even if Defendant A committed the instant crime, the victim was in a state of mental or physical disability or mental disability due to serious shock disorder at the time.
3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. B) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant B did not conspired with Defendant A, D, robbery, or joint confinement, and did not assault the victim.
Defendant
B The defendant A only told the victim at the time of assault, and there is no fact that the defendant A and D did not participate in any crime against the victim, and there is no fact that the defendant A and D did not share the act of execution.
Furthermore, it was impossible to anticipate the death of the victim.
In addition, since the victim freely acted by drinking alcohol and drinking the toilet, it cannot be deemed that there was an act of confinement.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too excessive.