살인미수
The appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor shall be dismissed, respectively.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the prosecutor’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the primary charges concerning the murder, by misunderstanding of the facts, or misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention of murder, although it could be recognized that the Defendant had committed an intentional murder, in view of the Defendant’s assertion (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the victim E’s face and neck toward the victim E, and making a
(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too uneased and unreasonable.
B. The above sentence that the court below declared by the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged against the Defendant as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the prosecutor’s facts or misapprehension of the legal principles is as follows: “The Defendant, at around 03:15 on February 5, 2016, engaged in the work of moving food materials, such as distribution with the victim, from the victim’s underground storage, sponsed him/her, and throw away his/her death,” while putting him/her on his/her hand a rectangular-type knife (32 cm in total length, 20 cm in length, knife) that was directly located in the main room of the case, and tried to kill the victim’s knife by cutting the victim’s knife in the front line of the D restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul around 03:15, 2016, and tried to kill the victim’s chest by leaving the victim’s face without being 49 cm.
“.” The court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, has intentionally committed murder against the defendant only with evidence submitted by the prosecutor.
On the ground that it is difficult to recognize the above facts charged, the court acquitted the above facts charged.
In addition to the circumstances stated by the court below acknowledged by the evidence, the court below stated the victim’s diagnosis that “flags are flaged or flaged.”