The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, was under the influence of alcohol, in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

In light of the agreement with the victim of unfair sentencing claim, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, although the defendant could drink at the time of the crime in this case, in light of the fact that the defendant made a relatively detailed statement about the circumstances leading to the crime in this case, and the defendant's specific behavior patterns (Evidence No. 29 of the Evidence) immediately after the crime in this case, it is not deemed that the defendant had the weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the crime of this case in consideration of the fact that the defendant tried to kill the victim's chest with the kitchen knife and did not achieve that intent, and the means and methods of the crime are very cruel, the victim suffered a serious injury by undergoing a large of eight hours of surgery due to the crime of this case (No. 83 of the evidence record), as well as by taking account of the fact that it is difficult for the victim to do so even if there is pain, it is inevitable to punish the corresponding punishment.

On the other hand, the victim was sent to a hospital immediately after the crime and received appropriate treatment, and appears to have not existed in the present serious post-treatment (the sentencing investigation report submitted to the court of the competent trial). The defendant is aware of the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and the victim reached a unanimous agreement with the victim.