살인
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is sufficient to acknowledge the Defendant’s criminal intent of murder, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant, as consistently stated in the facts charged by the investigative agency, consistently with the victim’s body part; (b) the intensity of the victim at time; (c) the victim’s condition immediately after the assault; (d) the autopsy result of the victim’s body examination; and (e) the Defendant’s perception of the Defendant at the time of the assault; and (e)
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem that there was a conclusive or incomplete intention to kill the victim.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. An ex officio determination of the changes in the indictment was made in the trial as the primary charge, and the reasons for the judgment that the existing facts charged are considered to be the subsequent [the reasons for the judgment to be written] [the facts of the crime] added the facts charged as stated in the indictment to the preliminary charge, and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court that permitted this.
However, as seen below, this court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary facts charged and found the Defendant guilty of the primary facts charged, so the judgment of the court below was unable to be maintained as it is.
Nevertheless, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.
3. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 04:00 on February 27, 2015, the Defendant coming from the Victim G (Woo 10 months after the birth) who was locked in the Defendant’s residence located in Nasi-si, and the Defendant went to the her husband due to the primary network against her husband, etc.; and (b) the Defendant “picker will do so so.”