A. In light of the fact-finding, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was knife with the victim at the time of the instant crime, but immediately reported to 119 and took relief measures by blooding, etc., the lower court, despite the Defendant’s absence of the intent to kill the victim, was guilty of murder.

There is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime claiming mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so as to have no memory, and was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (10 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In determining the assertion that there was no intention of murder, the intent of murder is not necessarily recognized as a purpose of murder or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only definite but also definite, so-called dolusent intent is acknowledged (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the tool used by the defendant for homicide the victim, falls under a deadly weapon with the length of 10 cm (the length of 20 cm), and the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife of death.