The appeal filed by both the requester for medical treatment and custody, the requester for attachment order and the prosecutor shall be dismissed.

A. The Defendant and the requester for medical treatment and custody and the requester for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the requester for attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Defendant had the intent to kill the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, but did not have the intent to kill the victim, and thus did not have the intent to do so. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges, but did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if it is found that the instant charges of unfair sentencing are guilty, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact that the lower court’s punishment on the part of the Defendant case (e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the request for attachment order.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent in determining the part of the defendant's case is not necessarily recognized to have the intention of murdering or of 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 only conclusive but also it is so-called dunesal intentional intent. In a case where the defendant asserts that the defendant was merely guilty of having committed an injury or assault without confession of the criminal intent of murder, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime, the circumstances leading up to the crime, the motive of the crime, and the prepared deadly weapons.