1. The lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the charge of attempted murder of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning and acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that it was insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s intentional murder.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of murder.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but did not state specific grounds for objection on the guilty portion in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of special injury included in the facts charged of attempted murder of this case, based on its stated reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of special injury.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.