The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The excessive one (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were physically and mentally weak Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) had the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (a three-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had the intent to murder at the time of committing the instant crime.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for attachment order even if it is found that the Defendant’s rejection of the request for attachment order is likely to recommit murdering.

2. Determination

A. According to the records on the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness, it is not deemed that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, in view of various circumstances, including the motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude and behavior at and after the time of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant stated in an investigative agency as a substitute for the circumstances at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant, who was the Defendant, was dissatisfied with the victim C (59 tax) who was the Defendant at the same time, who was the Defendant’s NAV, was dissatisfied with the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine.

On September 8, 2016, the Defendant, at around 09:30 on September 8, 2016, in the “F” restaurant operated by F, which is operated by D located in Busan, had the victim and fright together with the victim while drinking in the same manner, had the victim, who was under the influence of alcohol, returned back to the Republic of Korea, and returned to the Republic of Korea after he returned to the Republic of Korea.