A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (a person who attempted to suspend) committed the instant crime, and the Defendant was able to knife the victim’s knife, and the victim’s hand was removed, and thus, the victim should not be injured. This constitutes an attempted suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act, and thus, constitutes an attempted suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the attempted suspension or suspension of the instant crime, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) A mentally and physically disabled Defendant was in a state of mental disability by being drunk at the time of the instant crime.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. In a case where the commission of a crime was commenced on the part of a defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and the suspension was suspended at his own free will before the crime was completed, not due to the circumstances that interfered with the completion of the crime under the general social norms, it shall be deemed as an attempted suspension. However, if the defendant finds out a large number of traffic of the victim after knifeing the victim with a knife to kill the victim, and finds it on the wind of the knife and let the victim fright, it shall be deemed as a situation that interfered with the completion of the crime under the general social norms. Thus, it shall not be deemed as a voluntary suspension.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do640, Apr. 13, 199). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant knife has reached knife the victim's left chest, etc.