The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

A head of seized one 20cm in length, 10cm in height, 10cm in length.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of mental disability due to depression and excessive drinking at the time of committing the instant crime, but the lower court did not recognize it.

B. Although the defendant did not have the intention to murder at the time of the crime of mistake of facts, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant committed the murder and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court determined that the Defendant could not be deemed to have been in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions due to depression or compromise at the time of committing the instant crime, in light of the following: (a) the background, means, and method of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s head, in particular, was the head of the Defendant who followed the victim, thereby making a attack at the head of the victim again; (c) the Defendant’s act before and after committing the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant’s statement at the prosecutor’s office that was relatively probnating the process of the instant crime and the circumstances before and after committing the instant crime.

(2) The following circumstances, acknowledged by the record as follows, and ① the doctor of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center of the Ministry of Justice, who has given a mental diagnosis following the commission of a mental appraisal to the defendant by the court of the original instance, present the opinions that the whole intelligence of the defendant is average of 100, the consciousness of the defendant is clear and sound, and ② the defendant did not memory at the time of the crime, but argued that the statement of the defendant was partially embodied in the process of questioning by the investigator in charge, but rather, the defendant was intentional to conceal the crime in the logical interrogation by the investigator.