All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant had no intention to kill the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of murder among the facts charged in this case, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) At the time of the birth of the victim, the Defendant was physically and mentally deprived or physically weak due to the loss of short-term detention resulting from acute alcohol toxicity, which was caused by the intoxic alcohol toxicity.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's argument of mental and physical weakness, which is unfair.

3) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (18 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentencing of the lower judgment by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant’s intentional murder on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or planned murder, but there is a possibility or risk of causing another person’s death due to his/her own act, such as his/her assault, if he/she knew or predicted that another person’s death would occur.

may be filed.

In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no murder intent at the time of committing the crime, and only the Defendant was only the intentional murder or assault committed, the determination should be made by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, the type of deadly weapons prepared at the time of committing the crime, the nature and repetition of attack, the degree of the occurrence of the crime, the possibility of the occurrence of the consequence of the death, and the existence of the act of avoiding the crime as a result of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do535, Oct. 29, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant’s head head was boomed several times at the time of committing the crime, and the part was taken several times.