Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. Summary of the grounds for appeal 1) Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (the following is referred to as the “Defendant”).

) 가) 사실오인 피고인이 무방비 상태로 누워 있던 피해자의 왼쪽 옆구리와 가슴을 칼로 찌른 것이 아니라 말다툼을 하다가 몸싸움으로 이어져 서로 맞잡고 뒹구는 과정에서 칼을 휘두른 것이다.

In addition, it is not intended to kill the victim with the wheels of the motor vehicle, but caused the negligence that did not see the victim in the process of driving the motor vehicle rapidly.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant was the wheels of the motor vehicle with the intent to kill the victim who was in a knife state with a knife and murder.

B) Although the circumstances leading up to the instant case of unfair sentencing are as follows, the lower court recognized the Defendant as murdering the victim under the “cruel Act on the Acceptance of Crimes,” and sentenced the Defendant to 18 years of imprisonment. This is so unreasonable as to be too unreasonable. 2) In light of the Defendant’s background of the instant crime, the result of the instant crime by the Defendant, the method of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in a case where the Defendant alleged that he had no intention to commit the crime at the time of the crime, whether or not the Defendant had the intention to commit the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, method of the existence and use of the prepared deadly weapons or implements, the father and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of the result of the death.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do5590 Decided March 9, 2001, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). (B) The evidence duly examined by the court below reveals that the location where the victim used the vehicle wheels of the Defendant at the time of driving is used.