All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Determination on the defendant's case

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, whether the Defendant had attempted to murder (1) or attempted to murder), the lower court, on the grounds of detailed reasons, determined that the Defendant planned the commission of the crime, such as preparing the tools of murder with the intention of murdering the victim from the beginning, and that the Defendant committed the murder accordingly, and that the Defendant could have acknowledged the conclusive intention of murder.

The decision was determined.

The circumstances cited by the court below: (a) the Defendant purchased and concealed the hacks used as the tool before the crime was committed; and (b) the Defendant left the body of the victim so far due to the hacks prepared in advance. In particular, the Defendant’s hair, hacks the victim’s hair, hacks, and hacks the victim’s hair and face, and the Defendant’s hair and hacks the victim’s head, hacks, and hacks the victim’s hacks; and (c) the Defendant sent back to the hospital immediately after the crime was committed; (d) the Defendant’s life was very abnormal and hacks the victim’s body; (e) the Defendant’s cell phone hacks so that it would not be reported by the victim at the time of the crime; and (e) the Defendant’s cell hacks and hacks the front hacks of the front hacks; and (e) the Defendant’s head and hacks the front hacks of the Defendant’s.

Examining the circumstances in which the victim of the defect had escaped without aiding and abetting the victim, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of murder, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Defendant or his defense counsel.