A. The Defendant had no intention to kill the victim.

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as that of the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above argument in detail under the title “the judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel”. The lower court’s judgment can be justified in comparison with the records, and it does not seem that there was an error of law of misunderstanding of facts, such as the Defendant’s assertion.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant may be deemed to have served a considerable amount of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but in light of the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant had reached a state where the defendant was unable to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and thus, the defendant's claim of mental or physical disability is without merit

C. There are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and divided the instant crime, the fact that there was no other criminal history, which was sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2001, and the victim is also the Defendant’s wife by mutual consent with the victim.

However, on the other hand, the defendant prepared a deadly weapon by drinking the victim and purchasing it excessively in marina, etc. due to the crime of this case, and was hospitalized for 4 weeks with a depth where the victim flowed to the left side side of the wall by drilling up to the mouth.