A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized knife knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts and the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness are no longer bullying against the victim.

There was no intention to kill or injure the victim, and at the time of the instant case, the mental disease was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the assertion of this part, and the lower court acknowledged that there was an intentional murder on the Defendant by clearly explaining the grounds for its determination.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in a thorough comparison with the evidence, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts, and the defendant's assertion

B. The existence of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness is a legal issue to be determined by the court in light of the purpose, etc. of the punishment system. In such judgment, the result of a specialized appraiser’s mental diagnosis is an important reference material. However, the court is not necessarily subject to the opinion, but should independently determine the existence of mental and physical disorder by comprehensively taking into account not only the result of such appraisal but also all the materials indicated in the records such as the background and means of the crime, the defendant’s act before and after the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do638, May 10, 196). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the court below and the trial at the court (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do638, May 10, 1996). In other words, according to the mental commission of this court, the defendant has a presumed mental disorder as “net disorder, mixed type” at the time of appraisal on November 2017.