The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of a misunderstanding of facts, while the Defendant had been in dispute with the victim D due to a promulation of a dispute with the victim D, the victim who had interested had been threatened with the kitchen knife and taken it away, the Defendant suffered the loss at the right corner, and the victim was deprived of his/her intention in order to remove the victim. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby understanding the circumstances of the crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant made the same assertion as the reasons for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant, who was living in the kitchen knife with the kitchen knife, took the kitchen knife from the Defendant, took the kitchen knife, took the kitchen knife as a lethal weapon, took the kitchen knife from the kitchen in the kitchen, and made a detailed and consistent statement that the Defendant got off the victim’s quota with the view to hiding the kitchen knife; and (b) the Defendant’s argument is consistent with the victim’s statement that the instant kitchen knife and the instant kitchen knife were hidden because the instant kitchen knife and the excessive course were

As a result of a thorough examination by comparing the evidential materials of this case with the fact that the location of the victim's upper position is a sacrife position, the degree of shock to the degree that the two sides will be congested, and the blood trace discovered from the net used in the crime, etc., the judgment of the court below is justified, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant asserted that he did not have the intent or ability to discern things by taking advantage of his intent or ability at the time of committing the instant crime on the grounds of unjust solicitation. However, in full view of the background, method and content of the instant crime, Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, it is only recognized to a certain extent, and at the time of committing