beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning murder and attempted murder) ① The lower court: (a) deemed that the commission of each of the instant murder and attempted murder was planned, but in fact, it was contingent and dynamic crimes; and (b) the criminal facts in the original judgment (the part concerning attempted murder) stated in the judgment of the lower court were as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) confirmed that the Defendant was using the victim K once with the part of the victim I, and (c) confirmed that he was living in the victim K twice after the Defendant was using the victim K once with the part of the victim I; and (d) again, he was living in the victim I on more than once after having followed the part of the victim I from the beginning; (b) but (c) in fact, the Defendant just carried the part of the victim I’s son twice, as in the said criminal facts, did not change the victim K once again.
In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) The sentence (a life imprisonment, etc.) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the planning and importance of the instant murder, attempted murder, and the degree of damage, relationship between the Defendant and the victims, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for life, without the sentence of death, is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant
A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was not a planned crime, the intention of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing another person’s death due to his own act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). Therefore, even if the Defendant’s act is not based on the prior plan, as alleged by the Defendant, insofar as the Defendant’s intentional murder is acknowledged (the Defendant himself).