Defendant

In addition, both the applicant for the medical care and custody and the applicant for the attachment order and the prosecutor's appeal are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant and Defendant and Defendant and Defendant and Defendant for the medical care and custody and Defendant for the attachment order; Defendant and Defendant for the medical care and custody and applicant for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not recognize the status of physical and mental health loss or mental weakness due to inhalement or drinking at the time of the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake of facts or mental and physical disorder.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment, fifteen years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s mental and physical loss or the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical weakness, the lower court also asserted the same purport as this part.

The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the process and method of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant crime; (c) the Defendant’s mental and physical condition at the time of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s mental and physical condition at the time of the instant crime was presumed to have been relatively sound at the time of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant cannot be deemed to have been in a state that the Defendant

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or of misapprehending of legal doctrine as the grounds for appeal.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court with respect to the wrongful assertion of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and where the first instance judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court has long committed the crime of attempted murder of the same kind.