A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Any one (No. 1) of the strings of seizure shall be confiscated.

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (a.e., attempted suspension) the Defendant suspended the victim’s timber with his/her own discretion and had the victim undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation and return to the victim’s mind. As such, the Defendant’s act constitutes an attempted suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act and thus, the punishment should be mitigated or exempted.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant attempted to stop. Accordingly, the defendant stated the grounds for appeal in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, while examining the purport of appeal, it is interpreted that there is an assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

there is an error in law.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the commission of a crime is suspended according to his/her own free will before the crime is completed, if the suspension is not due to the circumstances that obstruct the completion of the crime under ordinary social norms, it shall be deemed to constitute an attempted suspension. However, in a case where the commission of a crime was committed during the course of the crime, and where the commission of a crime was frightly committed, it shall be deemed as a situation that obstructs the completion of the crime under ordinary social norms. Thus, it shall not be deemed as an attempted suspension by a person.

(대법원 1999. 4. 13. 선고 99도640 판결 등 참조). 원심은, 원심이 적법하게 채택ㆍ조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들 즉, ① 피고인이 원심 피고인신문과정에서 “피해자가 순간적으로 기절을 하기에 피고인이 깜짝 놀라서 피해자의 얼굴을 치면서 ‘죽으면 안 돼’라고 소리쳤다.”라는 취지로 진술한 점, ② 피고인은 노끈을 이용하여...