A. Although the Defendant did not intend to kill the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, the lower court accepted the facts charged and sentenced the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also definite. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, motive, existence and type of the crime, method of attack, the nature and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, and the possibility of causing death, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6425 Decided February 8, 2002; 2006Do734 Decided April 14, 2006, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant, immediately before committing the instant crime, was frighting to the door of F, citing the fire extinguishers of the second floor in the building where the case occurred due to the emulgator’s elegator, and ② the husband of the victim who is the building owner.