At around 21:30 on June 11, 2014, the Defendant told the victim E (the age of 51) to be “Chewing” without any justifiable reason while intending to take the body, and the victim said that “I would not have any desire for the first person to drink if I dice,” and the victim said that “I would not have a bath to the first person when I dice,” which was an dangerous object by opening a cooling house with the said Drick, after taking off the beer’s disease on the table, and then faced the beer and killed, and then threatening the beer’s flick, booming the beer’s cand, and again, the beer and the beer’s disease that were in the air conditioned at the air condition was cut off on the right part of the victim’s right part.

The Defendant carried dangerous objects and assaulted the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each investigation report (to hear the F phone statement of a stude, and to hear victim E phone statement);

1. A detailed statement on processing reported cases;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion on discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, asserts that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, according to each of the above evidence, although the defendant was found to have been drinking at the time of committing the crime, considering all the circumstances such as the circumstances of the crime, the form of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the defendant's act before and after the crime, it cannot be seen that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime in this case. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant has committed the same kind of violent crime (one suspended sentence and 11 times a fine).