The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

The excessive one (No. 1) seized shall be the one.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have attempted to kill the victim solely on the ground that the misunderstanding of the fact that the Defendant carried excessive possession of the business place of the victim and found the business place of the securities company where the victim works, and that the Defendant attempted to kill the victim cannot serve as a circumstance to conceal the intent of murder. A person who attempted to do so was F, an employee who carried in the immediately preceding call, but was not the victim. If the Defendant attempted to kill the above F due to the fact that he carried in excess, the object would be the above F. However, since the Defendant did not have committed any crime against the above F, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have attempted to murder since the commencement of the commission of the crime was not recognized, it cannot be deemed to have been established as a planned murder. Accordingly, indirect facts presented by the lower court in support of the intention of murder cannot be deemed to have been established as a planned murder of the victim. In addition, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s intent of murder or that there was no possibility that the motive of the crime itself would pose an attack with the overall motive or consequence of the death.

shall not be appointed by a person.

Nevertheless, on a different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of attempted murder of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Legal principles are erroneous.