A. Although the defendant, at the time of the instant case, misunderstanding of facts, there was a fact that the victim spawns the part of the victim spawn and shoulder at the time of the instant case, there was no head that caused the death of the victim.

B. The Defendant, as a mentally ill person with a mental disability of the third degree, suffered from her own illness, etc. at the time of the instant crime, was in a state that lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as this part of the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in light of the witness’s statement, the Defendant’s arbitrary statement in an investigative agency, etc., while sufficiently explaining the decision on the assertion under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”.

Examining the judgment of the court below in a thorough comparison with the records, the judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the defendant suffered from her own illness, etc. as a mentally disabled person of Grade III and her drinking together with the victim, etc., but the defendant committed the crime of this case while drinking together with the victim, etc., although he is found to have committed the crime of this case, he/she shall be found to have been aware that he/she was under investigation by the prosecutor on November 6, 2012, after the crime of this case, and stated by the defendant as to how he/she her drinking or how to commit the crime, the circumstances after committing the crime, etc.