A. In fact, there was no motive for the Defendant to murder the victim, and there was no fact that the Defendant had a knife knife to murder the victim.

The clothes or body of the defendant was not asked to the victim, and the victim was not bad to the victim.

In light of the fact that the F is a cleaning agent immediately after the crime of this case, the person who committed the crime of this case is not the defendant but F.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the use of drinking and anti-competence.

(c)

The sentence of the court below (five years of imprisonment) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion to the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court, based on the following circumstances, found that, at the time of the instant crime, there was a conflict between the Defendant and the victim as a matter of not returning the victim’s “diberts” (hereinafter “diberts”) that the Defendant lent between the Defendant and the victim, and that, during the instant accident, the Defendant was knife and attempted to murder the victim’s neck once.

The decision was determined.

① The victim stated that “A prior to the instant case, the Defendant asked the Defendant to return the instant Dorts through F, and on the day of the instant case, there was a dispute on the grounds of the said problem by telephone with the Defendant (the trial record 77,78 pages).” The F stated that “The Defendant stated that “The Defendant would not return the instant Dorts, but there was multiple remarks from the Defendant,” (the trial record 98 pages), and the D Hospital nurse’s department also.