The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the crime of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant and the Defendant committed the crime of this case, misunderstanding that the victims and their behaviors were stolen of the Defendant’s smartphones, and asked the return of smartphones, but the victim et al. had an industrial knick knife one time from the victim’s air in order to feel and defend the Defendant that they threatened the Defendant, and there was no “homicide’s intention”.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental retardation.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (seven years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court’s judgment does not necessarily require the intent of murdering or planned murdering, and it is sufficient to recognize or have predicted the possibility or risk of causing death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive, but also it is so-called dolusent intent. In a case where the Defendant asserts that there was only no criminal intent of murder or assault at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether or not the Defendant had the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, part and repetition of the prepared deadly weapon, and the possibility of causing death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009).