beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for eight years.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal
A. (1) Defendant A was not planned to kill the victim E from the beginning; (2) Defendant A had no rape before murdering the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of murder, such as rape, etc., is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Shebly the sentence that the court below sentenced to Defendant A (a life imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) could not be predicted that Defendant A would murder the victim E at the time of committing the robbery of this case.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant B guilty of robbery and death resulting from robbery is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below to Defendant B (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
(c)
The sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant A is too unhued and unfair.
2. Determination on the part of the case of the defendant
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts A, the murder’s intentional intent does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009). Therefore, even if the above act is not based on the Defendant’s prior plan even if the Defendant’s act was not based on the Defendant’s prior plan, so long as the Defendant’s intentional murder is acknowledged, the lower court’s determination that the above act constituted murder is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to this part of the facts by the above Defendant is without merit.