A. In fact, the victim unilaterally notified the defendant about the division of relationship with the defendant and did not intend to kill the victim only once with a knife knife that he did not know that he did not neglect the defendant.

B. Although misunderstanding of the legal principles, even if the Defendant was found to have been guilty of murder, the instant crime constitutes an attempted murder, since the Defendant did not proceed with the crime once again, and instead took the victim to the hospital and received medical treatment, even though he did not have any particular impediment to completing the crime.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (7 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted, found that the Defendant sufficiently recognized or predicted the possibility or risk of causing the death of the victim due to his/her own act.

As such, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intent to commit murder at the time of committing the instant crime.

The decision was determined.

① The Defendant: (a) sent a message to the victim that the victim avoided her face and does not contact in the future; (b) sent the victim by preparing a knife; and (c) knife the victim’s left chest part of the victim’s chest.

(2) Anyone may expect that anyone would have a high possibility of death of a person due to serious long-term damage if he/she has a knife with a knife on the left part of the victim's chest where he/she has been injured.

③ In fact, the victim was diagnosed as “an open upper part of the chest wall,” which requires approximately 4 weeks’ treatment on the chest side, due to the Defendant’s act of 3 cm in length and 4 cm in depth, on the chest side. The victim was in a situation where the upper part was more deep than 1 to 2 cm in the upper part, thereby causing damage to his life.