The judgment below

Of them, the part of the defendant's case against the defendant and the respondent for attachment order A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendants' punishment (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years, confiscation, and imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 6 months) of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal principle, and unconstitutional sentencing) stated that the part concerning the defendant B is erroneous, and that Gap consistently conspired from the investigative agency to the examination of the first witness in the court below, from the court of first instance to the examination of the defendant B and the victim.

However, after the mother of A recommended that “B make a favorable statement,” the 2nd witness examination at the court below reversed the statement to the effect that “A had not conspiredd with B in advance with a knife with a victim, and at the first time, it would only threaten the victim.”

Therefore, while the reversal statement of A cannot be trusted in light of its circumstances, the part of the existing statement can be trusted, the Defendants can be recognized as having conspired in advance to inflict bodily injury on the victim.

Thus, the crime of robbery is established as it can be recognized as willful negligence of the injury to Defendant B.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby soliciting Defendant B and the victim to inflict injury in advance.

In addition, A was found not guilty of an injury resulting from robbery on the ground that it is difficult to deem that A could have predicted the victim to intentionally commit an injury.

B) In light of the background, means and methods of the instant crime and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s request for attachment order, even if it sufficiently recognizes the risk of recommitting the murder crime against the Defendant A, is unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B and A of this part of the facts charged.