A. 1) Whether there was a criminal intent to commit murder (as to the part on attempted murder of the victim B), the criminal intent of murder is not necessarily recognized to have the intention to commit murder or to have planned murder. 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 predictability is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent to commit murder at the time of the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent to commit murder at the time of the crime, the issue of whether there was a criminal intent to commit murder should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background and motive leading up to the crime, motive, existence and type of the prepared deadly weapon, the part and repetition of the attack, the possibility of causing death, etc.

(B) The lower court recognized the following circumstances based on the evidence as indicated in its holding, and determined that the Defendant A had an intention to commit murder at least, on the ground that at least it was possible for the victim B to have been aware of, or foreseeable to have been dead at the time of the instant crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). The lower court rejected the Defendant A’s and the defense counsel’s assertion on the following grounds: (i) at the entrance of the main shop of “G”, the Defendant A was punished for the costs when the H and the shoulder were faced with the victim B, who was working at H; and (ii) the Defendant A got the victim B and the body fighting with the Defendant; and (iii) the Defendant A was able to have a beer 2 disease by entering the convenience store of the victim B at the time of the instant crime (i.e., CCTV at the time of the CCTV’s display.