The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

A list of seized and seized articles, of two knife knifes.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Although Defendant (1) had no intention to kill the victim at the time of the instant crime, the lower court accepted the facts charged and sentenced the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) Under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state that the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

(3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the Prosecutor (four years of imprisonment) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder in a judgment on a mistake of the facts against the defendant. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence even if it is uncertain. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, motive, existence and type of the crime, method of attack, the nature and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, and the possibility of the occurrence of the death result.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6425 Decided February 8, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court are as follows: ① the Defendant was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant who was a work employee in the Pyeongtaek company; ② the Defendant was using the victim on the day of the instant case.