All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (whether murder was established or not) did not have the intent to kill the victim. In particular, despite the absence of the victim’s neck, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Defendant’s face, head, and right chest part of the victim with the intent to murder, and thereby causing the murder of the victim.

2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mental and physical weakness, thereby not recognizing the Defendant’s mental and physical weakness, even though the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, committed an act under the circumstances where the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (15 years of imprisonment) to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the Defendant’s facts alleged in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following reasons: (a) on the grounds that the Defendant alleged to the same purport as the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as the alleged facts, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the detailed circumstances in the 2nd 9 to 2nd 13th 2nd 2nd

We affirm the judgment of the court below as just in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below and closely compared with the evidence examined.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below contains an error of mistake as alleged by the defendant.

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

B. The notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the medical care custody center prepared by the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness is as follows: “The Defendant may display a temporary compromise failure for the happiness of alcohol at the time of the instant case, but it is determined that the Defendant did not have any obstacle to the real judgment, and that the ability to change the object is different.