Jackack knife knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

As the relationship between the victim C(54 years of age) and the neighbor, the Defendant was able to have the victim's house door opening at the usual new wall time, and the victim's house door opening was slicking so that the noise could not be slick.

On August 7, 2014, around 03:10 on August 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) heard sound from the victim’s house door door in Young-gu, Busan Metropolitan City; and (b) heard it, and (c) thought that the victim from outside the house “the victim left the house to the house,” and (d) took the Defendant’s hand, and was disregarding the victim again into the house, and (e) tried to kill the victim.

Therefore, the Defendant tried to kill the victim by carrying jack knife ( approximately 9cm in length, about 19cm in total length), and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife in his own house, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement of C;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A photograph of the criminal tools, opinions, medical certificate, and an operation recording paper;

1. A criminal investigation report (Attachment of a site and other photographs), and an investigation report (Attachment of medical records of a victim C);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the choice of imprisonment for a limited term, background of the crime, motive for the crime, type and method of use of a deadly weapon, in full view of the objective circumstances before and after the crime, the degree of damage, the possibility of the occurrence of death, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was guilty

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant and defense counsel asserts to the effect that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability by drinking at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. Determination

Although the Defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated by the instant court, namely, whether the Defendant made a relatively detailed statement at an investigative agency as to the process leading to the instant crime. In full view of the method and content of the instant crime, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, it does not seem that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

From June to 15 years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of recommendations;

○ Determination

-homicide, Category 2 (General Murder);

○ Special Convicts

- Reduction elements: Non-conformitys (including serious efforts for recovery of damage)

○ General Convicts

- Mitigation elements: Serious reflect

○ Scope of Recommendations

From April to 8 (the minimum limit of the scope of sentence (seven years) shall be reduced to 1/3, and the upper limit (12 years) shall be reduced to 2/3, respectively, in the case of imprisonment for a period of two years and eight years (the mitigation area, murder and attempted murder)

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of the case of the case of the three-year period of imprisonment with prison labor was committed by the Defendant on the ground that the door of the neighbor’s house was slick, and the Defendant intrudes into the victim’s house at the end of the time, and thereby harming the shoulder of the victim. The method of the crime is very harsh, and the crime is very heavy in light of the criminal tool and the body of the body of the victim. The victim appears to have caused considerable mental shock and physical pain due to the instant case, and the victim could have lost his heavy life due to the minor dispute. Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant requires a strict punishment corresponding thereto.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant should be considered in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the crime of this case is committed in the attempted crime, the victim and the victim do not want the punishment of the defendant, and the fact that the victim appears to have come to a contingent crime of this case under the influence of alcohol, etc. In addition, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Shin Dong-ho