A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant 1 only prices the victim 1-2 times in the course of setting up against the assault by the victim, and did not have the intent to kill the victim. Therefore, the judgment below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intentional murder or by misapprehending the legal principles as to

2) Since the Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was physically and mentally weak due to the decline in impulse impulse capacity, punishment ought to be mitigated.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles of the Defendant’s homicide 1) The intention of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, but there is a possibility or risk of causing another’s death due to his/her act such as his/her own assault.

may be filed.

In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no murder at the time of committing the crime, and only the Defendant was only the intentional murder or assault committed, the determination of whether the Defendant was guilty of murder should be made by taking full account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the commission of the crime, motive, existence of the crime, type and usage of the prepared deadly weapon, the fear and repetition of the attack, the likelihood of the occurrence of the result of the crime, and the existence of the consequence of the crime, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015). 2) The lower court’s reasoning based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, and the following circumstances are acknowledged by these evidence, namely, (i) the age used by the Defendant is approximately 15 cm in length and approximately 1.5 km in weight and approximately 1.5 km in weight.