A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) 1) The Defendant only divided a day-to-day conversation with the victim of pro-Japanese appearance at the time of the instant case, and there was no threat for the purpose of retaliation.

2) Even if the Defendant’s act is found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) is unreasonable as it is too unhued.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to whether there was an objective of retaliation against the Defendant, unless there was a confession of the Defendant, ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account various objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s personal relationship with the victim, possibility of expectation of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc. (hereinafter “providing the proviso to investigation”) and the content and degree of disadvantage suffered by the Defendant due to changes in the investigation or trial process, provision of the proviso to investigation, etc., the circumstances leading up to the crime committed by the Defendant and the victim at the time of the crime, including the background leading up to the crime, the surrounding environment, such as the time and place of the crime, and the use of the weapon such as deadly weapons, etc., the method and method of the crime, the contents and form of the crime, the provision of the proviso to investigation, etc., as well as the following circumstances established by the Defendant and the victim on the day before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030, Sept. 26, 2014).