The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

excessive seizures (one of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Offices, 2015).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who lost his mind and body, was in a state of mental and physical loss at the time of committing the instant murder.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. According to the judgment of the court below and the court below on the assertion of mental and physical loss, and the evidence duly adopted and examined, the defendant could have become a state of acute addiction due to excessive drinking and psychotropic stability at the time of committing the crime of murder in this case.

In light of the Defendant’s means and methods of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant’s conduct before and after committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of loss of the ability to discern things and make decisions when committing the instant murder, beyond the weak state of ability to discern things and make decisions at the time of committing the instant murder.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

3. In light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed in order to murder a victim who had no awareness of judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing, and that the risk was very high in light of the method of committing the crime and the injury of the victim, etc., it is necessary to punish the Defendant with strict punishment corresponding thereto.

However, there seems to be a need to fully reflect the fact that the attempted murder is a crime under mental and physical weakness, the fact that the crime was committed in violation of the Road Traffic Act (not only after the accident), but also the fact that the victim of the attempted murder was taken in the first instance, and that the attempted murder was taken from the victim of the crime.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant’s motive, means and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, criminal record, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too vague.