In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

A. The Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) are the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(ii) At the time of the instant crime with mental disability, there was a lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol. However, there was no intention to kill the victim. (ii) At the time of the instant crime with mental disability.

3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment is too unlimited and unfair).

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murdering or planned murdering. It is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, it may be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the Defendant’s commission of murder, motive, type, and method of murder prepared at the time of committing the crime, degree of repetition and repetition of attack, and possibility of death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 206).