The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had no intention to kill the Victim F (hereinafter “victim”).

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, five years of suspended sentence, five years of probation, 160 hours of social service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder. 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 only definite but also definite. In a case where the defendant contests that there was no intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, whether the defendant had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime ought to 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 the attack, degree of the possibility of the occurrence of the death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). The judgment of the court below, despite the fact that the defendant had no intention of murder at the time of committing the crime, has taken into account the following circumstances, i.e., whether the defendant had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9672).