The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts is merely a victim’s head on the part of a beer who was in a beer’s constant assault and desire by the victim, and there was no intention to kill the victim. 2) The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, and was in a state of mental disability.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Regarding the assertion that the Defendant had no intention to commit murder, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murdering or planned murdering. 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 the Defendant had no intention to commit murder at the time of committing the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether the Defendant was guilty of murder at the time of committing the crime should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009, etc.). However, according to the evidence of the lower court, the Defendant’s lawful adoption of the victim’s bombomb in the process of committing the crime, including the circumstances leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, the existence and repetition of the prepared deadly weapon, and the possibility of the death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do967).