The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Seized knife No. 1 (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the charge of attempted murder of this case, despite the absence of the intent to kill the victim at the time of committing the crime of this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court (a punishment of eight years of imprisonment and knife confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the Defendant did not have the intent to commit murder at the time of the commission of the crime, and only argued that there was only the intent to commit murder or assault, whether or not the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime at the time of the commission of the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, such as the background leading up to the commission of the crime, the motive for the commission of the crime, the existence and type of the prepared deadly weapons, the seriousness and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867 Decided February 26, 2009, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court are: (i) the Defendant has long been faced with pains; (ii) the Defendant considered that he did not properly look at the victim due to the external appearance of the victim at the time of the instant crime; and (iii) the Defendant was trying to look at the victim’s house when the victim went into the house; and (iv) the Defendant was trying to come into the knife upon the victim’s mistake; and (v) the Defendant was dead when the victim went into the house; and (v) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “knife knife” was called the victim’s knife with the victim’s late-time resistance.