The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case against the defendant A and the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by the defendant C.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant A1”), or Defendant A did not intend to kill the Defendant B and the victim, or instruct the Defendant B to prepare a knife, etc. of the crime tool. Defendant A did not have any fact of drinking water for the victim, and Defendant B made phone call to the Defendant B to kill the victim and prepare the PC as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant PC”).

(2) The court below found Defendant A guilty on the charge of murder and attempted murder on the basis of the statements, etc. made by B without credibility. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The court below's decision is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. The sentence (30 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. It is unfair that the respective sentence (Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for 20 years, Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year, and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B and D is too unreasonable.

C. Prosecutor 1) In regard to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Defendant A and C, Defendant A and C can be recognized that the above Defendants included the psychotropic drugs in the exemption from the number stated in the facts charged. Although the above Defendants did not know whether giving and receiving or providing the above exemption was in violation of the Act, the lower court acquitted Defendant A and C of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. As to Defendant C’s aiding and abetting Defendant C’s murder, the lower court, without any justifiable reason, made a confession of this part of the crime at the time of interrogation of the Prosecutor’s Office Nos. 3 and 4 times, on the ground that Defendant C had no intention to commit murder.