1. The judgment of the court below (including the part not guilty in the grounds) shall be reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for seven years;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Under the influence of liquor at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disability and injury. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the facts leading up to the Defendant’s crime of this case, the motive for the crime of this case, the injury and repetition of the attack, and the Defendant’s confessions the Defendant at the time of the crime by making a statement at the prosecutor’s office that the Defendant might have caused the Defendant’s death at the time of the crime. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, and thus unfair sentencing is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records as to the defendant's claim of mental disability, although the defendant was found to have drunk at the time of committing the crime in this case, it is recognized that the defendant had a bad condition at the time of committing the crime in this case, and the circumstances after committing the crime, especially the amount of alcohol that the defendant had drunk prior to committing the crime in this case, should not considerably exceed the main amount of the defendant at the time of the crime (300 pages of the evidence record), and the defendant stated in an investigative agency in a relatively detailed memory of the situation at the time of committing the crime and the process of the crime, it is not deemed that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime in this case, and therefore the above defendant's claim of mental or physical disability cannot be accepted.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant in this part of the facts charged is a danran bar with C who is the defendant's wife in 190.