The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, was in possession of a knife to kill the victim, and there was no intention or criminal intent to kill the victim.

Unlike this, the court below found the defendant guilty by recognizing the intention of murder, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles.

B. The Defendant, on the first trial date of this court, withdrawn the allegation of mental or physical disability.

The defendant voluntarily suspended the act of knifeing the victim by knife, and did not escape or destroy evidence after immediately reporting to 112.

In light of these circumstances, even if guilty of the facts charged in this case, there are grounds for statutory mitigation due to the suspension or attempted suspension of the crime and the self-denunciation against the defendant who suspended the crime by the above person.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on discretionary mitigation.

C. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the intention of murder in the relevant legal doctrine 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 conclusive but also a so-called willful negligence recognized. Whether the Defendant had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, including the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, types of deadly weapons prepared, the attack and repetition of deadly weapons, and the likelihood of the occurrence of death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do5590, Mar. 9, 201; 2006Do7342, Apr. 14, 2006).