In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. A summary of the grounds for appeal 1) At the time of committing the crime against the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) (hereinafter “Defendant”), the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed an assault against the victim in the state of main action and interest, and did not have any awareness that the intent of murdering the victim would compromise the head of the body. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

In addition, the court below's punishment against the defendant (16 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) The lower court’s sentence (16 years of imprisonment) against the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court, regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake.

As to this, the court below did not necessarily recognize the purpose of murdering or the planned intention of murdering, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act, and there was no intention of murdering at the time of committing the crime.

In dispute, the issue of whether the Defendant had the intent to commit murder at the time of committing the crime should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, the type of deadly weapons prepared, the nature and repetition of the attack, the possibility of the occurrence of death, etc., and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In other words, the Defendant notified the Defendant that the person living together with the Defendant was hedging because of verbal abuse, violence, etc. of the Defendant, and then came back at his house and remains in the body of the person living together with the Defendant.