A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) In the course of the instant case, the Defendant, at the time of the occurrence of the crime, did not have any intention to commit murder, even though the victim was merely prices the body part of the victim’s head in a contingent manner in the process of shacking the shack gun and cutting the remainder of the shack gun, and did not have any intention to commit murder. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to commit murder, thereby affecting the conclusion

B) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant alleged excessive defense had committed the instant crime in order to defend the threat of the remaining life by injuring the victim on a bridge, facing the shacker’s guns, which constitutes an excessive defense under Article 21(2) through (3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, constitutes an excessive defense under Article 21(2) through (3) of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court did not recognize it. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or excessive defense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on excessive defense, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the legal principles, facts and circumstances recognized by the rules of evidence, and ① even if the defendant's statement was based on the defendant's statement, the two parts of the victim's body part, the body part of the air gun, the body part of which is the material body part of the defendant's life, was directly faced with the defendant's life, ② the defendant was faced with shock due to shock at the time, and the shock was broken, and the decline was so strong to the two parts of the victim's body. ③ At least twice, the victim was the two parts of the victim's body and it can be seen that the defendant intentionally assaulted the two parts.