A. (1) Although the Defendant did not have any intention to kill the victim D (hereinafter “victim”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the fact that the lower court recognized the Defendant’s intentional murder.

B. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment and four years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant reflects his wrong, that the instant crime was committed contingent, that the victim expressed his intent not to want the punishment against the Defendant, etc.

B. In light of the following, the lower court’s sentence is too unabrupted and unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the prosecutor’s major issue of the instant case and the extremely poor nature of the offense; (b) the Defendant has a majority of criminal records of violence; and (c) the Defendant denies the criminal intent.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles also argued to the same effect as the Defendant alleged in this part of the grounds for appeal. The court below held that it is difficult to find out the motive for the Defendant to murder the victim in light of the peace relationship between the Defendant and the victim, and that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant seems to have been unsatisfing or unsating the victim’s neck, so long as the victim’s neck was unsatisfing or unsatisfing, and its frequency was also limited to one time, and the depth of the victim’s neck was not deep at a level of 0.5 cm, but on the other hand, on the other hand, the following circumstances are acknowledged: (i) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant stated several times that the Defendant would satisfing the victim’s knife while taking part in the victim’s knife with the victim’s knife.