1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the instant charges, on the ground that the Defendant’s statement on the circumstances before and after the occurrence of the instant case, deeming that there is no credibility and probability of credibility, on the grounds that the Defendant’s “the possibility that knife would go beyond the victim’s response to excessive danger” is merely a suspicion based on conceptual or abstract possibility.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below determined the defendant's punishment by taking into account various circumstances that serve as the conditions for sentencing and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee. In particular, the crime of murder is a serious criminal whose damage cannot be recovered in any way because it infringes on human life by any means that it is impossible to replace human life. The crime of this case is a crime that resulted in the defendant who was de facto marital marital marital husband's death in a knife, and the crime of this case was very severe, and the crime of this case was serious snife and mental pain due to the crime of this case, and did not receive a letter from the victim's bereaved family, and the defendant was unable to receive a letter from the victim's bereaved family. On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant made efforts to rescue the victim by making a report, etc. after the crime of this case, and that the defendant's body of fighting with one another cannot be ruled out as a ground for the crime of this case.