A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts did not intend to kill a victim at the time of committing the instant crime, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (based on the statement of public trial date, the main text in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted by

(2) As the Defendant was under the influence of liquor at the time of committing a crime indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant ought to be mitigated from punishment.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The criminal intent in the crime of murder is not necessarily recognized as having the intention of murder or planned murder, and it is sufficient to recognize or have predicted that there is a possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act. The recognition or predictability of the crime is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the defendant contests that there was only the criminal intent of murder but also the criminal intent of bodily injury or assault at the time of committing the crime, whether or not the defendant was guilty of murder should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading up to the crime, motive, motive, type and method of the crime, the nature and repetition of the crime, the degree of the possibility of avoidance of death, the existence of the consequence of death after the crime, and other objective circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do22312, Aug. 18, 200).