All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) There was no intention to kill the victim.

Since the defendant has discontinued his homicide, the punishment shall be reduced or exempted as necessary in accordance with the provisions of the attempted suspension.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too heavy.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence of the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court, based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, found the facts indicated in its reasoning on the part of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and, in light of such facts, sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intent to murder the victim.

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The lower court acknowledged the facts indicated in its reasoning based on the evidence admitted, and determined that the Defendant’s attempted discontinuance cannot be deemed an attempted discontinuance by himself in light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the Defendant stated at an investigative agency that her mother, F, and Elimin have retired from office by putting his body and arms.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the third party was to have suspended the commission of a crime by verbal statements is justifiable (Evidence Records 77, 123, 261). In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Since the lower court mitigated an attempted crime in accordance with Article 25 of the Criminal Act, it seems that even if the Defendant’s attempted suspension is recognized, the attempted reduction under Article 25 of the Criminal Act and the attempted suspension under Article 26 of the Criminal Act cannot be conducted in duplicate (in light of all the circumstances indicated in the record, Article 26 of the Criminal Act is applicable to the Defendant’s crime of this case.