A. Defendant 1) Although there was no intentional intent to murder the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the Defendant’s assertion of homicide as to the Defendant’s factual misunderstanding, the intent 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 the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the Defendant has no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing 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 committing the crime is bound to be determined by considering the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.). In addition, in light of the following circumstances, the lower court’s adoption of the victim’s religious conflict and the victim’s evidence as a whole before and after the commission of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006).

The crime of this case was committed with the purport that “the death of the victim is not an absolute divorce,” and the crime of this case was committed with the intent that “the victim would die” while making a dispute with the victim due to religious problems, etc. immediately before the crime of this case was committed.