All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant 1) had been suffering from a high-level noise problem against the victims of ordinary noise.

There is no fact that the Defendant did not enter the F on the day of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant did an act of assault against the victim by entering the guard room for the victim at the time of committing the instant crime and communicating with the victim, and there was no intention to commit the murder.

B) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, thereby lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (18 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. The defendant alleged that he had no intention to commit murder at the court below, claiming that there was no intention to mistake the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding, and the court below rejected the above assertion by giving a detailed statement of the judgment on the same purport as the grounds for appeal Nos. 5 through 10. The court below rejected the above assertion by considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and in full view of these circumstances recognized by these evidence, the judgment of the court below is correct, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of

Therefore, this part of the defendant and defense counsel cannot be accepted.

① Comprehensively taking account of the statements in the court below, including I, other security guards working in the defendant’s residential apartment, J, the head of the above apartment management office, and G, etc. residing in the upper upper floor of the defendant’s residence, the defendant had been constantly dissatisfied with the noise problem from around 2005 to around the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant directly sought as the upper floor.