A. Defendant 1) recognized that the Defendant was knife of the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime, but there was no intention to murder. 2) The Defendant committed the instant crime under the state of mental and physical disability, such as that there was a yellow disorder, and that there was no memory at the time of the crime.

3) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, one year of confiscation, which is too unreasonable).

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant alleged the same content in the lower court’s argument that there was no intention to murder, the lower court rejected the judgment in detail under the title of “the judgment on the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” (Articles 3 through 4 of the lower judgment). In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant is deemed to have a drinking condition at the time of the instant case, but on the other hand, the defendant stated that "the defendant has a yellow disorder" after being investigated by the prosecutor (in addition to the investigation record 176 pages), there is a yellow disorder on the part of the defendant.

There is no ground to recognize that the defendant has a mental illness, such as hospitalization at a medical care center, etc., the defendant actively states the facts favorable to the defendant's assertion or the defendant, such as "no intention has been committed" and "the same shall apply to those who have a sworn disorder" in an investigative agency, and states that some facts are not memory, and thus there is any defect in the defendant's statement to an investigative agency. Thus, it does not seem that there is any defect in the defendant's statement.