The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant 1 (the part on attempted murder) followed brake immediately before the collision, and the Defendant was a situation in which the victim E and F should receive the remaining labor cost, there was the Defendant’s intentional murder (the perception of the result of murder and the intent to allow it).

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s mistake of facts and the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine ought to be made by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, including the background leading up to the commission of the crime, motive for the commission of the crime, the type of deadly weapon prepared, the nature and repetition of the crime, the degree of the occurrence of the death, the possibility of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the consequence of the crime (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002; 200Do5590, Mar. 9, 2001). The willful negligence, which is an intentional act, has the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, unlike the gross negligence, and there is an intent to deliberate on the possibility of the occurrence of the crime that an infant is aware of the risk of the crime.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s judgment and the court below’s judgment recognized the following circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, and the defendant should be confirmed from the standpoint of the actor, considering how the possibility of criminal facts would be assessed if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed, without depending on the statement of the actor (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017).