A. Error of facts (a.e., special intimidation) the Defendant did not have dancing the victim’s knife.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, 160 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in the judgment below. 2) In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination on this part is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the facts.

① According to the CCTV images upon a photograph, it is confirmed that the Defendant gets knife in a restaurant room and knife the knife of the knife and the knife of the victim. In particular, according to the 8th photograph, the Defendant knife the knife of the victim’s head, and the other knife’s knife is almost in contact with the body of the victim.

(No. 35-38 of the Investigation Records). (2) At the time of the police investigation, the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement that “I knife the knife,” “I am knife the knife on the day of the incident, I am flife because I am knife and I am knife I am unflife I am am unflife I am unflife I am unflife I am unflif

The credibility of a confession made in the original instance is recognized in light of the background leading up to the confession as above and the contents of the statement of the confession.

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

Supreme Court Decision 201.15