A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

A. Defendant and Defendant and Defendant and Appellant 1 of the Medical Care and Custody Act (the part of the judgment of the court below as indicated in the judgment of the court below No. 1), Defendant and Appellant of the Medical Care and Custody Act (hereinafter “Defendant”) exercised physical force against the victim in order to remove ear attached to the body of the injured person’s body in a state of restitution due to the administration of philopon medication at the time specified in paragraph (2) of the first instance crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the victim did not have intention to kill the victim.

Nevertheless, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) had had the intent to kill the Defendant;

On the other hand, this part of the facts charged was found guilty. The judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of murder.

2) The Defendant was physically and mentally deprived (the part of the judgment of the court below of the first instance) of mental and physical loss (the crime of murdering as indicated in the judgment of the court below) at the time of committing the crime of murdering the existence of the first instance judgment.

3) The sentence that the first and second instances of sentencing were sentenced to each of the defendants (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years, the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed on the Defendant by the first instance court (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor ex officio, the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant were sentenced respectively. With respect to the part of the defendant's case of the first instance judgment, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the part of the defendant's case of the first instance judgment and the judgment of the court of second instance, and this court decided to hold concurrent trials by raising an appeal against the part of the defendant's case of the first instance judgment and the judgment of the court of second instance. Each of the crimes that the court of first instance and the second instance found the defendant guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of