The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.

One brick (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant was faced with the head of the victim by provoking a stone to the victim, and was sprinking him and sprinking him, and there was only sprinking him over the bottom of the victim, and there was no head of the victim by sprinking him.

In addition, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was only the intentional murder, not the murder, and thus, the Defendant should be punished by the death resulting from bodily injury, not the murder.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground of the testimony of witness L without credibility, etc. is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, 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 on the Defendant (a 12-year imprisonment and a seizure of seized bricks) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued to the effect that this part of the judgment of the court below is alleged in the grounds for appeal. As to this, the court below consistently cited the victim’s head from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below and made a statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, and thus, the witness’s statement is contrary to the Defendant’s assertion. In light of the circumstances and the degree of statement made by the witness, etc., the credibility of witness’s statement is high, and evidence seizure No. 1 attached to the evidence and the defendant’s hand at the time of arrest after the arrest of the Defendant, which appears to have occurred in the course of making it difficult for the Defendant unfolding the victim into the wall, taking into account the following: (a) the vehicle and the victim parked at the scene of the crime of this case to the point of the victim’s head; and (b) the victim’s body and degree.