The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, has an intention to kill the victim at the time of committing the instant crime, he/she was in possession of an anti-defluence and excessive amount, he/she did not intend to kill the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant had the intent to murder at the time of committing the instant crime and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on murder or by misapprehending the intent to murder.

B. Even if the facts charged of the instant case are found guilty, in light of the background of the instant crime and the degree of injury to the victim, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, etc., the crime of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. 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 willful negligence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was only no criminal intent of murder or assault at the time of the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder, whether or not the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and method of the crime, degree of attack, and possibility of causing death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7342, Apr. 14, 2006).