존속살해미수
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Inasmuch as there was no intention for the Defendant to kill the victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) In light of the legal principles on mental and physical loss, the Defendant should be held accountable for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant had been physically and mentally lost due to early illness at the time of the instant crime.
3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intent of planned murder, but there was an intentional intent if the Defendant knew or predicted that there was a possibility or risk of causing another’s death due to his/her act, such as his/her own assault, etc.
may be filed.
In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no intention of murder at the time of the commission of the crime, and only was only the intent of murder or assault, the determination should be made by taking full account of the objective circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, including the background leading up to the Defendant’s commission of the crime, motive, existence and type of the crime, usage of the prepared deadly weapon, the fear and repetition of the crime, the likelihood of the occurrence of the result of the crime, the existence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the act of avoidance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015). 2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was aware at least of the possibility and risk of the result of the death of the victim by his own act at the time of the instant crime.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view this case.