A. The defendant is dissatisfied with the victim of mistake of facts, and only prices the victim with a contingency, and did not have an intention to kill the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the intention of murder in the relevant legal principles is not necessarily deemed to have the intention of murdering or planned murdering. It is sufficient to recognize or have predicted the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not definite, but it is so-called doluence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was 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 shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and usage of the crime, the nature and repetition of the prepared deadly weapon, the degree of the occurrence of the crime, and the possibility of the occurrence of death (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7342, Apr. 14, 206). 206, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had attempted to commit the crime in this part of this case.

In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination is sufficient to fully acknowledge that the Defendant had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had been murder at least at the time of committing the crime, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.