2. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against confinement life, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim, considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime using a knife, the degree of injury of the victim, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, the balance between the criminal punishment for other crimes similar to the instant crime and the criminal punishment for the Defendant’s age, family environment, and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However) However, “the application of the law” of the judgment below is clearly erroneous entry under Article 35 and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) in Article 5 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure. Thus, it is clearly erroneous entry under Article 35 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 201).