The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. For the following reasons, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine. A) The victim was in close relationship with the Defendant, as well as in close relationship with the Defendant, and there was no special financial relationship, and there was no special relationship between the two, and thus, it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize the intent of murder.

B) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case. C) The Defendant’s act was aimed at defending the victim’s assault, and thus constitutes self-defense. Even if the act of defense exceeded reasonableness, it constitutes excessive defense, since it was caused by fear, light, and yellow dust under night or other extraordinary circumstances.

In accordance with Article 21 (1) or (3) of the Criminal Act, a defendant shall not be punished.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B. The prosecutor (the sentence sentenced by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. The ex officio determination prosecutor filed a request for an attachment order of an electronic tracking device against the Defendant at the trial, and this court decided to jointly examine the Defendant’s case and the case of the attachment order application.

The case of the application for attachment order is examined along with the case of the defendant and the judgment is sentenced simultaneously, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

B. There was no intention to commit murder on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.