The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the victim of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles had written the Defendant several tests, but it did not cause the Defendant to have the intention of murder, and the wall used by the Defendant was not a deadly weapon to the extent of causing the Defendant to murder, and the Defendant was not prepared in advance, and there was no serious injury to the victim due to the Defendant’s act, etc., the Defendant did not have the intention of murder.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the Defendant’s assertion of homicide does not necessarily require the intent of murdering or planned murdering. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death to another person due to his/her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether or not the Defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, the existence and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, the degree of the likelihood of causing death, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21254, Mar. 29, 2018).

Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant.