The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The length of the seized kitchen is 18cm in length, knife.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, like the instant facts charged, did not knife the victim as a knife, and did not have any intention to murder.

First of all, the victim was knife to protect the defendant, and the victim only knife the knife in the process of physical fighting.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the person guilty of the facts charged in this case by recognizing the act of murder and the criminal intent thereof is erroneous.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below on the defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio as to the admissibility of evidence in the protocol.

The lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by using the interrogation protocol, etc. prepared by the judicial police officer (Evidence List Nos. 8 and hereinafter “instant protocol”) as evidence.

However, regarding the instant protocol, the instant protocol contains a statement by the Defendant (Attorney) stating that “The testimony that he/she had admitted the admissibility of evidence, but attempted to kill is wrong.”

The first trial record of this case was submitted as evidence by the court below on the first trial date, and on the same day, the defendant's defense counsel stated as follows: "In lieu of the facts charged, the defendant recognized the facts charged, but he did not have the intention of murder but reached knife only 10,000 won."

In light of the above opinions of the Defendant (Defense Counsel) as to the trial record 25 pages of the trial record of this case or the contents of the statement as to whether to recognize the facts charged of this case, the Defendant (Defense Counsel) at the time asserted to the effect that the police statement of the Defendant (in particular, the statement to the effect that the Defendant committed the crime with the intention of murder) contrary to the above legal statement does not correspond