The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of mistake of facts and violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, the defendant's restoration of the victim's body was consistent, but the defendant did not have the intention to kill the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the interpretation and application of the law concerning murder.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misconception of facts and violation of law

A. The intention of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death to another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also definite intention.

In a case where the Defendant did not have the intention of murder at the time of the commission of the crime and only argued that there was only the intention of murder or assault, whether or not the Defendant had the intention of murder at the time of the commission of the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, such as the background leading up to the commission of the crime, motive, type and use of the prepared deadly weapons, the father and repetition of the

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5590 Decided March 9, 2001; 2017Do21254 Decided March 29, 2018, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5590, Mar. 9, 201

The circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below at the time of the crime are as follows:

1) CCTV images (on-site voice is not recorded) recorded in the situation at the time of the instant case.

The time indicated in the above film refers to the time indicated in the video as follows. The defendant and the injured party confirm that the surface and the name in the name in which the 1st century is drawn up between the defendant and the injured party, thereby getting on and off the otoba.