The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the facts that the Defendant 1 carried the balth of the victim’s head or pushed the victim’s chest into the hand floor. However, the Defendant did not sell the victim’s face to drinking, boom the victim’s neck, or occupy the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s act could not conceal the victim’s intent (the intent to injure the victim). However, the lower court found the Defendant to have sold the victim’s head or face part to drinking the victim’s head or face part, and cut off the victim’s neck by hand, and committed an unlawful act recognizing the Defendant’s intent to injure the victim. The Defendant merely carried the balth of the victim’s balth, but the Defendant was merely a balth of the balth of the victim’s balth, and so long as the said act by the Defendant was not sufficient to cause the victim’s death or death (the minor joints of the victim’s head and chest does not have causation with the victim’

The causal relationship between the two cannot be acknowledged, and furthermore, it cannot be said that the defendant could have predicted that the victim was dead or injured by his own act. The causal relationship and predictability cannot be acknowledged without clear evidence in circumstances where various causes for the death of the victim can be inferred. 2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: Imprisonment with labor (two years of imprisonment) imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court found that the Defendant had the intent to injure the victim, and that there was causation between the Defendant’s act and the death of the victim.

(1) The defendant.