[2] The case holding that there is a criminal intent of murder in the act of assaulting the victim of a dwarf dye's dye's dye's dye's dye's dye's dye's dye's dye's

[3] Whether the inclusion of the number of days of pre-trial detention under Article 22 (9) (b) of the Agreed Minutes of the Agreement under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea constitutes the statutory inclusion (affirmative), and in this case, the validity of the judgment sentenced in the order of the inclusion of the days of pre-trial detention

[2] The case holding that there is a criminal intent of murdering in the act of assaulting the victim of a dwarfe's dwarfe's dwarfe's dwarf's dye's dye's dye's dye's dye's s

[3] In accordance with Article 22 (9) of the Agreement under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America on Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, "in addition to the rights listed in subparagraphs (a) through (g) of this Article, members, civilian employees, or families of the United States armed forces who are tried by the authorities of the Republic of Korea shall be guaranteed all procedural and substantive rights granted to citizens of the Republic of Korea." On the other hand, in addition to the rights listed in subparagraphs (a) through (g) of this Article, members, civilian employees, or families of the United States armed forces presumed to be prosecuted by the authorities of the Republic of Korea shall have the following rights: (b) Item (b) of this Article provides that "the rights to be included in detention prior to the pronouncement of the ruling at facilities of the Republic of Korea or the United States of America shall be included in the number of days of detention"; (b) the above provision provides that "the above rights shall be included in the number of days of detention before the ruling shall not be included in the number of days of detention."

The criminal intent in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive, so-called dolusence is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2231, Aug. 18, 200). In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the issue of whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, the existence and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of the occurrence of the death.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance and the statement of the defendant at the court of original instance, the court below acknowledged that the defendant used violence against the 150cm in body size and 42 kilograms in body size as a sound military personnel, and in particular, it was the degree that the string of the string of the string for about 15 to 20 seconds in body size, especially the string of the string of the string for about 15 to 20 seconds, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of murder in this case by judging that the string of the string was at least dolusent intention of murder at the time of the crime in this case. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and since the judgment of the court below did not change even if the defendant used the string to the victim after using the violence, it cannot be accepted as the grounds for appeal.

2. It shall be deemed ex officio.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records, the court below, as a member of the United States armed forces, committed the instant crime from February 22, 2000 to the confinement facility in Pyeongtaek-si located in Pyeongtaek-si, was prosecuted for non-detained, and applied Article 22 (9) of the Agreement on Facilities and Areas under Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the "Minutes of the Agreement on Mutual Defense") and Article 57 of the Criminal Code to include 115 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance in the original sentence.

In accordance with Article 22 (9) of the Minutes of the Korea-U.S. Administrative Agreement, in addition to the rights enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this Article, members of the United States armed forces, civilian personnel, or family members of the United States armed forces who are tried by the authorities of the Republic of Korea shall be guaranteed all procedural and substantive rights granted to the citizens of the Republic of Korea. On the other hand, in addition to the rights listed in paragraphs (a) through (g) of this Article, the rights of members, civilian personnel, or family members of the United States armed forces who are prosecuted by the authorities of the Republic of Korea are specified in (a) through (k). Among them, subparagraph (b) of this Article provides that "the rights to be included in the period of detention before the pronouncement of the judgment in the detention facilities of the Republic of Korea or the United States are included in the period of detention." Since the above provisions and the above provisions are expressed to be "the rights to be included in the period of detention", the whole number of days of detention should be included in the period of detention and sentence 97).

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)