The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the instant case, there are extenuating circumstances to be taken into account in sentencing.

The Defendant committed a crime under a state of mental disability, such as the depression was not proper due to depression.

The victim does not want to be punished against the defendant.

The defendant has been frequently abused by the victim under the influence of alcohol, and such circumstance seems to have served as the motive for committing the crime.

The defendant recognized the crime and made a mistake.

However, the crime of this case is committed by intending to kill a victim by taking advantage of the head and neck of multi-purpose construction work, which is a dangerous object of the defendant, and prices the head and neck that may have a fatal effect on the life of the victim. In light of the specific contents and circumstances of the crime, and the method of use, etc., the crime is serious.

Defendant's harmful act was done not only once but also repeatedly on several occasions.

As a result of the crime, not only the victim faces a crisis of the loss of life, but also the victim seems to have been exposed to considerable attention at the time of the crime.

In 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 10 months on the grounds of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., and committed a crime during the suspended sentence period.

According to this, the sentence that corresponds to the degree of responsibility of the defendant is inevitable.

In full view of the following factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, even considering the sentencing factors of the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing that set the highest sentence close to the applicable sentencing range within the scope of the applicable sentencing range, which has gone through statutory mitigation and discretionary mitigation, is excessively excessive.