Judgment

The circumstances that may be considered favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant seems to have seriously reflected his mistake while making a confession of the instant crime, and that the degree of injury the victim sustained due to the instant crime is relatively minor.

However, the crime of this case was long lent from the Lambling board to the victim.

When demanding a full payment of KRW 15 million claimed, the victim's refusal to borrow such money from the injured party is a case that he attempted to murder the victim's side knife with a knife prepared in advance. In light of the defendant's assertion, it is unclear whether the defendant lent the victim with money of KRW 15 million from knife, not only the risk of the act but also the possibility of criticism is high.

In addition, the defendant's crime of this case shows that the victim suffered a considerable physical or mental suffering, and the defendant did not receive any use from the victim until the trial of the party.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances unfavorable or favorable to the defendant as above, and other factors unfavorable to the defendant as well as the motive, means, and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, the age and conduct of the defendant, the family environment, and the fact that there is no change in special circumstances that may be assessed differently from the sentencing conditions of the court below up to the trial, and in particular, there is no change in the sentencing conditions of the court below, it is difficult to view that the court below’s sentencing opinion (eight jurors: four years of imprisonment and three years of imprisonment) is unfair because the punishment prescribed within the recommended range of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee (three years of imprisonment: four years of imprisonment and three years of imprisonment) is excessive in light of the degree of responsibility of the defendant.

The defendant's appeal is justified.