살인미수
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (i) the Defendant did not have the intention of murder, and even if there was no intention of murder, it constitutes not a conclusive intention but a dolusent intention. (ii) The instant crime constitutes a attempted abandonment. (ii) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not have the intention of murder or did not have the intention, the lower court also asserted the same purport, and in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that the instant crime was not the willful negligence but the final intention is reasonable.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in this case where the Defendant found the victim at his own house with a knife, thereby causing approximately 8 cm high depth of the victim on the right side and damaging the waste beer, etc.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the crime of this case constitutes an attempted suspension, the lower court also asserted the same purport, and determined that the crime of this case constitutes an attempted suspension, not an attempted suspension, in full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined.
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
C. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties, the relevant legal principles are too heavy in light of the content of the case.