The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, by misunderstanding the facts, committed an assault, such as taking or taking the neck of the victim, but did not have the intent to murder.

The victim's timber was not neglected, and there is no difference of fact between the victim and the victim.

There was no risk of life due to respiratory difficulties because the continued time of external force has considerably short.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: The sentence that the court below sentenced unfairly in sentencing is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below in light of the legal principles as to the criminal intent of murder, as stated in its holding, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the criminal intent of murder, since the defendant knew or predicted the possibility or risk of the victim's death as a result of his own act at the time of committing the crime of this case, in full view of the following: past records of the defendant, the victim's statement, the part of the defendant's statement, the trace of the victim's neck, the body of the defendant and the victim's body, the importance of the victim's body, the circumstances and contents of the victim's report, the defendant's change of the victim's body is difficult to believe, the defendant's arrest, and the walk after the defendant was arrested.

The decision was determined.

B. The judgment of the court below 1) In addition to the legal principles and circumstances stated by the court below as to whether the defendant was aware of the victim's name, the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, and in full view of the following circumstances, it can be recognized that the defendant attempted to kill the victim's name, and the defendant's intent to commit murder can be recognized. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous and it erred in the misapprehension of the facts as to attempted murder and attempted murder.

It is difficult to see it.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(1)