10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 10 GLYPH<Minus> 7 10 GLYPH<Minus> 6 10 GLYPH<Minus> 5 10 GLYPH<Minus> 4 0.001 0.01 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000 1 GLYPH<Multiply> 10 GLYPH<Minus> 5 5 GLYPH<Multiply> 10 GLYPH<Minus> 5 1 GLYPH<Multiply> 10 GLYPH<Minus> 4 5 GLYPH<Multiply> 10 GLYPH<Minus> 4 0.005 0.001 FIG. 1: The comparison between the contributions to total e ± fluxes from µ in Model I (or e in Model II) and all the other particle cascade decays. The red line denotes the contribution from µ (or e ), while the dashed line denotes the contributions from the other particles. The left figure is for Model II with m$_{D}$ = 1 . 8 TeV, and the right figure for Model I with m$_{D}$ = 3 . 0 TeV. about 1 TeV. Moreover, there are a faint minimum and a faint peak at about 100 GeV and 400 GeV, respectively, which can be considered as the subtle fine structure. Interestingly, we can fit such structure as well. The possible reason is that: at low energy ( ≲ 50 GeV), the DM S decay contributions to the observed electron/positron spectrum are dominated by these from A $^{0}$, H$^{0}$... channels; while at high energy, they are dominated by these from cascade muon decays. The muon decays produce a relative harder spectrum, which is peaked around 400 GeV. Because the peak varies with the DM particle mass, this explains why we choose m$_{D}$ = 3 TeV as a typical fitting value in Model I. In Fig. 1, we compare these two contributions in Model I with m$_{D}$ = 3 . 0 TeV and in Model II with m$_{D}$ = 1 . 8 TeV. In Fig. 2, we present the fitting for the FERMI data in Model I with τ$_{eff}$ = 0 . 72 × 10 $^{26}$s , m$_{D}$ = 3 . 0 TeV, and κ = 0 . 65, and the fitting for the ATIC data in Model II with τ$_{eff}$ = 0 . 52 × 10 $^{26}$s , m$_{D}$ = 1 . 8 TeV and κ = 0 . 67. In short, these fittings are pretty good especially at relative low energy. In addition, from Fig. 3, we obtain that our fitting for the PAMELA positron fraction data in Model II looks fine since the positron spectrum from the DM direct three-body decay is relatively harder. However, we can not fit the PAMELA positron fraction data in Model I very well in the low energy region ( < 20 GeV). The reason is that the low energy positron data are dominated by the sparticle and Higgs boson cascade decays, which produce large number of soft electron/positron. Therefore, the positron fraction can exceed the background value. Interestingly, the main character at the high energy region is reproduced pretty well. Especially, the steep rising is obvious due to the harder positrons from muon 13