All the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding and misunderstanding legal principles, the Defendants did not have the intent of abandonment because they did not neglect the victim's intent to kill the victim by making every effort so that the victim's mental illness can be seen as the victim's mental illness.

In addition, there was no predictability of the victim's death.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise that the above crime of abandonment and the possibility of predictability is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: ① the victim suffered from severe mental illness, and ② even if the victim was able to take food on his/her own, it was difficult to expect that he/she would have to take food on his/her own even if he/she had been able to take food on his/her own because he/she was able to take food on his/her own; ② there was considerable doubt as to whether he/she could have taken food on May 17, 2012 when he/she was able to take food on his/her own; ③ the defendants were in a state of health where he/she could take food on his/her own; ③ the defendants were living in another place without taking about about 3-day food; ④ the victims died; ④ the defendants did not take measures such as supplying nutrition to the victim who did not take food on his/her own for 3 days or her own, thereby leaving the victim abandoned the victim on the ground that he/she did not have been abandoned.

Furthermore, the court below held the victim.