A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

A. misunderstanding of facts and violation of law were committed in a state of being taken by the Defendant at the time of the instant case, and there was no memory of the victim’s body.

Although the defendant could exercise a strong force against the victim during influence, it is merely merely that the defendant, who was influence of the victim even before the instant case, did not breath a drinking habit and was under the influence of alcohol, did not intend to kill the victim.

When the Defendant excluded from drinking problems of a ordinary victim, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had an intentional act to kill the victim in light of the following: (a) the victim was good between the victim and his husband; and (b) the victim was informed of the death of the victim at the latest after the occurrence of the accident, and (c) the victim was frighted with telephone, and (d) the Defendant was frightly aware of the death.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant had had the intention to murder is erroneous in mistake and violation of law.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability with mental and physical disability, in excess of a large amount of fluence (a small-scale 2 disease) and 3-4 illness.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. A prosecutor’s additional prosecutor who is subject to the trial following the amendment of a bill of indictment in the court of this case shall keep the facts charged of murder committed by the court below as the primary charges and apply for the amendment of a bill of indictment as stated in the name of the crime, Article 259(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 259(1) of the Criminal Act in the applicable provisions of the Act, and the following facts charged: (a) the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment as stated in

Nevertheless, the argument of mistake of facts and violation of law against the primary charges is still made by this court.