The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and four months.

One knife (No. 1) for the seized slaughter.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too heavy or unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mental disorder or weakness, the Defendant was deemed to have drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but on the other hand, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the Defendant’s statement to a certain extent, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

The defendant's assertion in this part is not accepted as it seems to be in a state or weak condition.

3. We examine both the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the Defendant and prosecutor.

The crime of this case is a case where the defendant inflicts a very serious injury on the victim with a knife for slaughter without any particular reason, such as the fact that the defendant inflicts a very serious injury on the victim, and that the defendant did not agree with the victim so far is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of various sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant, when comprehensively considering the following: (a) the Defendant confessions the facts charged in the instant case and reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant has no record of the same crime; and (c) the Defendant appears to have been trying to recover from damage by depositing KRW 20 million for the victim.