A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine did not intend to murder victims. Therefore, the court below found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to murder, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to murder.

2) The sentence should be mitigated inasmuch as the Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

3) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five 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. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

may be filed.

In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only the Defendant was only the intention of murder or assault, the determination of whether the Defendant had the intention of murder was made by taking full account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, existence of the crime, type and usage of the prepared deadly weapon, the fear and repetition of the crime, the likelihood of the occurrence of the result of the crime, the existence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the act of avoidance after committing the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015). Meanwhile, inasmuch as the confession made by the Defendant at the court of first instance differs from the legal statement at the appellate court, it is doubtful that the probative value or credibility of the

In order to determine the credibility of confessions, the contents of confessions' statements are objectively rational.