The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) misjudgmented of the facts regarding the part of the Defendant case and the victim of the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) committed a knife or threatening the victim to prevent the victim from suffering an examination. However, while the victim tried to take the knife the knife by taking the knife, he did not intend to kill the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant intentionally attempted to knife the body of the victim of murder.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unlimited and unfair.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

It is unreasonable for the court below to order the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device on the premise that the defendant is found to have attempted murder unless the defendant had intention to commit murder.

Even if the crime of attempted murder is recognized against the Defendant, in light of the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, details and etc., it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant is likely to recommit the crime of murder. Therefore, it is unreasonable that the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years.

Judgment

The judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts as to the part of the defendant's case also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below, in light of the legal principles as seen above, found the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated after explaining the legal principles on the intention in the crime of murder, the court below rejected such assertion on the ground that the defendant's intent to kill the victim was sufficiently recognized.