A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of the charge of attempted murder of this case on the grounds that there was no intention to kill the victim D. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to murder or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (a three years of imprisonment, five years of suspended execution, and community service 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

may be filed.

In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no murder intent at the time of committing the crime, and only the Defendant was only the intentional murder or assault committed, the determination of whether there was the Defendant’s intentional murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be made by taking full account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, existence and nature of the prepared deadly weapon, the nature and repetition of the attack, the likelihood of the occurrence of the result of the crime, the possibility of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the consequence of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5355, Oct. 29, 2015). 2) The lower court’s reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and each of the following circumstances, namely, the Defendant, at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, was in hedging with the victim D.

At the same time, I think that he was sacrifies, and that he was able to receive double sacrifies because he was off with male and sacracks.